Should a criminal be "spared" if they are religious?

[SeanMacGabhann]

So this Shamso Miah was spared time because as a "devout" man he knew he was in the wrong and wouldn't benefit from a sentence?

If someone is devout are they not MORE culpable for the crime than us godless heathens? The suggestion that religious people are better than the rest of us is one of that things that makes us so... aggresive towards faiths

Cherie Blair, I'd like to wipe that... whatever that is from her face

[SteveT]

If they are a legally elected MP then my answer is a resounding YES.

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh FFS would you take your bone of contention with MP#s and just f***ing do one Steve

I started this thread in the Drawing Room specifically to get away from this banality

You haven't addressed the question at all

[Narnia]

Given he was 'devout' but obviously not enough to show the other cheek as it were (confusing religions I know) this man should have had a longer sentence. This is a very unusual reason to reduce a sentence and if it became law in this country then what would have happened if he had shot the person. You only have to read the 'God' thread here to realise not everyone believes there is one. He committed a crime and he should pay for it just the same as anyone else.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Exactly declan. As a "reason" for a light sentence it is astonishing

and yet it seems to pass without much comment. As a non believer I will rceive a longer sentence for the same crime?

[reggie]

I guess that 'religious' in this case is code for 'normally a good bloke' and baring in mind the Blairs' religious leanings also code for 'one of us'.

Taliban are ultra religious of course.

Try my blog

[SimonM]

I am by no means a big fan of Ms Booth but she has done nothing other than follow the rules on sentencing on this occasion. She was bound to consider suspending the sentence and the guy's previous good character - however derived - was always going to lean towards a suspension. This is just the pro Tory Murdoch rag having another gratuitous kick at Labour IMHO.

[????]

The term 'family man' or 'father of X children' is often used similarily for suspended sentences - don't be godless or childless is the lesson. Judges make judgements, these will include their prejudices....I think this is a bit storm in a tea cup.

[PeckhamRose]

It's outrageous. It is absolutely immoral. (If anything he should be given a longer sentence because he should have known better having a God to tell him what is the difference between right and wrong!) Since for many religion is just a matter of believing in a third party or not, it should have no bearing on justice. Personally I do not think people who wear their religion on their sleeves should be allowed High Office.

But Sean - your OTT reaction to SteveT's post is an example of what is becoming a tiresome sort of post from you these days.

Why not just ignore it!

The British Humanist Association has commented about this case here.

(Am I still allowed even to reference them?)

[????]

So you're a humanist but still implicitly think that people with religion have a better chance of recognising right from wrong? I dunno.

[SimonM]

The guy's religion had no bearing on the verdict or on the length of his sentence - only on whether to suspend it or not. Suspending a sentence for a first and not terribly serious offence is pretty much the default outcome. At worst Booth was just tactless.

[Ladymuck]

Sean, I can see why this is causing you some frustration: on the face of it, the justice system has "gone soft" on yet another criminal.

However, I believe that SimonM has hit the nail on the head when he says: "she has done nothing other than follow the rules on sentencing". I have not read the case in its entirety (only extracts from the media), but I suspect that Cherie Booth was unable to rely on a defence for her client. This would have left her with little option but to look to mitigating factors as a way of securing a reduced sentence for Mr. Miah (her client). Here she has utilised personal mitigation factors in that the mitigating factors are linked to the criminal as opposed to the crime - all perfectly permissible under the Criminal Justice Act. She suspends his sentence for two years based on the fact that he is "a religious person" and has "not been in trouble before". I.e. the reason for her decision is not based solely on the fact that Mr. Miah is "devout" but also because he is basically a man of good character with no previous criminal record (or as reggie put it: "normally a good bloke").

Yes, the sentence does appear lenient but I suppose the judges have the difficult and unenviable task of balancing severity of sentences with attempting to keep the prison population down. Not easy in my view.

As for the suggestion that an atheist might be given a harsher sentence than a religious offender I don't think this could be taken seriously. I have no doubt that had Mr. Miah been an atheist that another set of mitigating factors would have been tailored to his situation; the list is relatively broad...financial worries, his age, intellectual limitations etc. etc. However, I suspect this case has been grabbed by the press so willingly precisely because of the fact that this man is religious - in this case muslim. After all, dozens of cases involving assaults and reduced sentences go through our justice system every day but they are less juicy in detail and therefore go unreported by the media.

There and again, we could all adopt the rather cynical view of one reporter who said "maybe she's hoping that this will set a precedent, so that when her husband appears before a judge he will be able to put his religion to good use. I can imagine it now, five life sentences, suspended for a period of one year."!!!

As ???? put it: "...a bit storm in a tea cup.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Hmm. Good responses all. Maybe it was Blairs involvement which made me so irked but yeah on reflection storm in a teacup sounds about right

[Ladymuck]

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>...this man should have had a

> longer sentence.

Clearly this is a matter for debate and certainly this would in all probability be the view of the victim and his supporters. However, as alluded to above, sentencers are under a duty to proceed with caution before dishing out a custodial sentence.

This is a very unusual reason to

> reduce a sentence.

It actually isn't that unusual in the sense that it comes under the general umbrella of "good character" which, amongst other things, includes factors like regular church attendance (or in this case mosque attendance?), or being "devout" etc.

>...what would have happened if he had

> shot the person...

Again it would depend on all of the facts of the case, but (without reading through the various Criminal Justice Acts and their amendments and the case in its entirety), my guess is that the use of a firearm would probably have been cited as an aggravating factor by the prosecution.

[SteveT]

SeanMG wrote:- You haven't addressed the question at all

Should a criminal be spared if they are religious?

Like a catholic priest fiddling with children?

Then a resounding NO.

[PeckhamRose]

Ha!

You know that's not what I meant, you tease! Religious folk and their religious judges may believe they do.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So you're a humanist but still implicitly think

> that people with religion have a better chance of

> recognising right from wrong? I dunno.

[silverfox]

Sean raises an interesting point about this judgment that deserves some serious consideration and the matter cannot be dismisssed simply as the media jumping on the bandwagon or a storm in a tea cup.

Like most people I haven't read the whole case review and judgment but the nub of the matter is that she said the following:

"I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. 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." (See bbc url below)

Note that Cherie Blair has made the point that Shamso Miah is religious twice. This suggests her words were more than what lawyers refer to as obiter dicta, ie passing comments or opinion made by a judge in a decision that do not form part of the legal reasoning in reaching the decision. Rather it would appear the defendant's religious background formed the reason for the suspended decision.

So this throws up a number of legal and philosophical issues.

Legally, it may have been the correct decision although you could argue Shamso Miah should have been sentenced for the crime. Yes, mitigating factors and good character are taken into account and if the purpose of the sentence is one of correction then perhaps no purpose would have been served in sending him to prison.

I can imagine extreme cases where a person's religion should result in a lesser sentence eg, Jehovah Witnesses indirectly allowing suffering by refusing medical treatment (more a case of omission here than intention). More importantly, I can see many cases where setences should be increased to the maximum tariff where the defendant is religious, eg, militant extremists, shooting people who work in abortion clinics and Roman Catholic priests who abuse children.

Phiosophically, there is no justification for holding the view that religious people are somehow 'better' or 'superior' to non-religious people and the judgment raises a whole host of prickly issues as to claims of a higher morality, civic duty, responsibility for our actions, justice etc.

In short, this case has sent out the wrong message and there is the suggestion that religious people are better than the rest of us, or a least should be treated more leniently. Personally, I take the view that religious people should know better while accepting we all have weaknesses (or are sinners?). I suppose the best we can say is some religious people are better citizens that some non-religious people and vice versa.

(In case you missed it Radio 4 touched on this with Are religious people more likely to be honest? with Anne Atkins and the philosopher Professor AC Grayling)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2010/02/are_religious_people_more_like.shtml

[KidKruger]

I feel uneasy with the implication which could be drawn - that if you are non-religious (even though you may well have your own views on how we 'came to be') you may not be afforded the same judgement of 'good character'.

Would the extrapolation of this be that athiests by definition are of lesser 'character' than a religious person and even an agnostic !!?

Interesting for a country where a small miniroty actually practice religion.

[Ladymuck]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Like most people I haven't read the whole case

> review and judgment...

> Note that Cherie Blair has made the point that

> Shamso Miah is religious twice. This suggests her

> words were more than what lawyers refer to as

> obiter dicta...

Interesting silverfox. I took CB's words as being the ratio decidendi, i.e. the reason for the decision. If then, as you seem to think, those comments are merely obiter dicta, what then was the ratio decidendi? Has anyone seen the law report on this case?

[reggie]

God I love those latin terms, you is some Lady.

[Ladymuck]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> God I love those latin terms, you is some Lady.

Innit! Me dont talk Latin always dough, juss wen me wanna look clevver like in de drawing room... no wot I mean? Hey you is dat cool dude innit...respekk!

Ahem...better get back on topic...have tried to google the Law Report without success, anyone out there who can assist? Presumably the case name would be R v Miah?