Sparing the religious from prison.

In olden days, religious people used to be thrown to the lions and generally persecuted, but it appears one person has decided to try and reverse this position.

Step forward Cherie Booth QC, who has spared a violent criminal who broke the jaw in an attack from prison "based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before,"

Also saying...

"You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

Instead the sentence was suspended for two years.

Where do I sign up? :roll:

Maybe the use of the word Religious sends a bad message but it sounds like the young man of 25 had a clean record and it was a minor fight and not a crime for gain.

Upstanding citizens are often given leniency are they not?

So perhaps she used religious where we might use moral or law-abiding. Seems like too much of an over-reaction to her terminology and I say this as someone that is non-religious.

That is utterly ridiculous and logically lacking. A religious man should be spared punishment for the crimes he commits because he knows they're wrong? So should an atheist be punished because he doesn't know he's done wrong?

Religious people have committed crimes since religion was invented. They're human and fallible, just like everyone else.

Nope, nothing to do with being law-abiding and moral. It was indicated it was purely because he was a religious man who believed in God.

I knew she was a committed Roman Catholic. But I think she is taking it a bit far.

It probably doesn't help that her husband thinks he is holier than thou.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

That is utterly ridiculous and logically lacking. A religious man should be spared punishment for the crimes he commits because he knows they're wrong? So should an atheist be punished because he doesn't know he's done wrong?

Religious people have committed crimes since religion was invented. They're human and fallible, just like everyone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Nope, nothing to do with being law-abiding and moral. It was indicated it was purely because he was a religious man who believed in God.

I knew she was a committed Roman Catholic. But I think she is taking it a bit far.

It probably doesn't help that her husband thinks he is holier than thou.

---

My only point is if she did not use the word RELIGIOUS, would it have been that odd for her to let a man with a clean record and good character off on a suspended sentence? It sounds like it was a simple fight and not an actual crime. Probably something more for a civil suit to cover medical bills than for a criminal trial.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

My only point is if she did not use the word RELIGIOUS, would it have been that odd for her to let a man with a clean record and good character off on a suspended sentence? It sounds like it was a simple fight and not an actual crime. Probably something more for a civil suit to cover medical bills than for a criminal trial.

---

The problem is that by using religion as her motivation for suspending his sentence instead of the clean record, she's implying that an atheist would not be treated with the same leniancy. The suspended sentence isn't the issue. The implication that only a religious man would deserve one is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

My only point is if she did not use the word RELIGIOUS, would it have been that odd for her to let a man with a clean record and good character off on a suspended sentence? It sounds like it was a simple fight and not an actual crime. Probably something more for a civil suit to cover medical bills than for a criminal trial.

---

A brief description of the case from the Times.

Quote:

---

The court heard that he went from prayers at a mosque in East London to a bank, where he became embroiled in an argument with Mohammed Furcan over who was first in the queue. He punched Mr Furcan in the face and ran out.

When Mr Furcan followed him and demanded to know why he attacked him, Miah hit him again, knocking him to the pavement and breaking his jaw. Miah told police that he had been acting in self defence, but the bank's CCTV footage showed that he was the aggressor, the jury was told. Miah, from Redbridge in northeast London, pleaded guilty.

---

I can understand if there had been mitigating circumstances and he was of good character. However, she deliberately mentioned his religion twice in suspending the sentence.

The implication being that she would not have suspended the sentence for someone who was not religious.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not religious.

Wonder if ol' Mohammed Furcan is a religious dude too.

Anyway, I've always thought that if you wanted to smuggle things across the US the right way to do it would be to have short neat hair, a short sleeved white shirt with a black tie and to drive a van plastered with born again bumper stickers, because there's an assumption that those people aren't going to be driving a Ford Bronco full of methampetamine around. The overtly religious do get passes on lots of things.....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

The problem is that by using religion as her motivation for suspending his sentence instead of the clean record, she's implying that an atheist would not be treated with the same leniancy. The suspended sentence isn't the issue. The implication that only a religious man would deserve one is.

---

I see the implication but it does not seem damning. She should clearly watch how she says things after this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

A brief description of the case from the Times.

I can understand if there had been mitigating circumstances and he was of good character. However, she deliberately mentioned his religion twice in suspending the sentence.

The implication being that she would not have suspended the sentence for someone who was not religious.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not religious.

---

Sounds like this was not a fight then but simple assault. That makes her position harder to defend. That is what I get for skimming the linked article.

Really, a "religious person" should receive less leniency, as they are meant to know better, and lead by example.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Really, a "religious person" should receive less leniency, as they are meant to know better, and lead by example.

---

I agree with this. Alternately, we should punish them by the examples spelled out in their holy text. In this case, that whole eye for an eye thing applies.

Judge should have broken his jaw with the gavel.

Or at least asked the victim if he would like to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Or at least asked the victim if he would like to do it.

---

That would be right gentlemanly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Anyway, I've always thought that if you wanted to smuggle things across the US the right way to do it would be to have short neat hair, a short sleeved white shirt with a black tie and to drive a van plastered with born again bumper stickers, because there's an assumption that those people aren't going to be driving a Ford Bronco full of methampetamine around. The overtly religious do get passes on lots of things.....

---

You may think you're joking, but there was at least one major drug ring using Hasidic Jewish students as mules to smuggle Ecstacy into the US, based on the belief that such mules wouldn't be scrutinized by customs.



Back to the OP, this decision is seriously lacking in logic to me: Arguing diminished capacity because of alcohol or drug use I'd be better able to understand. Having a reputation for being religious should not translate to being a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Consider:

A religious person knows what is right and wrong. If they do something wrong, it is likely to be an isolated incident. A moral slip, a momentary lack of judgement.

But an atheist is morally flexible and probably evil. There are good ones out there, but they are in the minority. An atheist who commits crimes is likely to do so again, especially since they have do concept of personal redemption.

But then, religious people have no sense of humour and so wouldn't realise this whole post is a joke.