I was reading the posts next door about extradition and I think it is going off line a little, but there is a question to be answered. Plea bargains, and the right for them to be offered to the guilty.

If a judge gives a light sentence because a felon has admitted guilt or he is swayed by the prosecution, then surely he is breaking the law himself by doing so. The judge is there to see that the guilty is punished for his crime by the letter of the laws given him. He is also there to see that the victim has satisfaction of seeing the felon get his fair and just sentence for that crime on his person/property etc.

If a plea bargain has been arranged then what is the point of going to court in the first place. The judge is defrauding the office he holds and the people that placed him there.

If the prosecution leaves out evidence or do not carry out their task of prosecuting the man fully. Then surely they too are guilty of fraudulent behaviour and bending the law to suit them-selves. If the lawyers for the prosecution do this once then surely they can never really be trusted to carry out their work with fairness and conviction. There laws and sentence’s are there as a bench mark, and if the judge or the prosecution lawyer brush it aside for their own purpose then the case is not legal or just.

The UK stopped giving lenient sentences for guilty pleas because of the victims saying, they do the crime so they should do the time. We have over here stopped the automatic right to early release, it has to be earned and even then it is not guaranteed.

Be well IAN 2411