Talk:Criminal Justice Act 2003
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Parole
The comments about prisoners being released on parole (in controversy section) is irrelevant to this article as the prisoners in question were sentenced predominantly under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 - the criticism was not directed at the CJA2003. I'm less sure where it would go in elsewhere Wikipedia, since a one-off political criticism about some prisoners' release would not fit easily into any topic - indeed one could question its notability at all. This section has been deleted and reverted. I also amended the spelling to British as it discusses a British Act. Hacienda 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, these prisoners were sentenced under the 1997 Act, but their release is further fueling the controversy around the "lenient" sentencing allowed under the 2003 Act. It's important to acknowledge and explain this controversy, that the prime minister is clashing with the Tories, and will be introducing new parole reforms. I don't think the mention of the 53 prisoners should be removed, but put into better context surrounding the controversy. -Aude (talk contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It does tend to suggest a new article on judge/politician relations and the sentencing dispute should have its own page, with a link from this and other ones. It would be a tricky undertaking, not least meandering through law, politics and NPOV: fun for a newbie editor... I may try to put the remarks in better context after some more thought about the relevant law. Hacienda 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- A new article on the sentencing dispute would work. No hurry, but if/when you do, just present all sides of the debate, (e.g. Tories say this, Tony Blair says that). If possible, provide background that has basis in research and statistics. In addition to an article on this specific dispute, there should also be one on Criminal Justice in the United Kingdom. If such an article exists now, I can't find it. -Aude (talk contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It does tend to suggest a new article on judge/politician relations and the sentencing dispute should have its own page, with a link from this and other ones. It would be a tricky undertaking, not least meandering through law, politics and NPOV: fun for a newbie editor... I may try to put the remarks in better context after some more thought about the relevant law. Hacienda 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Low sentences
The phrase "Since the legislation was passed, many judges have set lower terms than those suggested by the Act" in "life sentences", which I accept I left in in the re-write, in my opinion breaches the WP:NPOV guidelines in suggesting judges are constantly lenient, something hotly debated by the judiciary currently. Perhaps that discussion is better the subject of a more substantial separate article about the state of government-judiciary relations in the UK currently? Hacienda 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It could be added that Lord Chancellor said on Question Time that "the problem is with the sentencing framework" and that judges are not to be blamed, [1] and that judges are speaking out. [2] -Aude (talk contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- See above re. Parole Hacienda 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Useful resource for editors
In The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No.18) Order 2007, at the bottom, there is a summary of all the CJA 2003 provisions in force to date. Useful resource for editors of this article I'd say.Cutler 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Ron Barker (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
