The Times (London) reports:
The Judicial Complaints Office is to look into a complaint by the National Secular Society that [Cherie] Blair, [the wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a part-time judge] suspended a six-month jail sentence passed on Shamso Miah on the ground that he was devout.Miah was convicted at the Inner London Crown Court last month of assault after he broke a stranger’s jaw [over an argument about who was first in line at a bank]….
Mrs Blair said that violence on the streets had to be taken seriously but added: “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 are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
He was ordered to complete 200 hours of community service and pay £200 in costs.
Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.
Cornellian says:
She didn’t come across very well in the movie The Queen either.
February 7, 2010, 12:37 amLB says:
How religious is a person who assaults someone over a place in line at the bank…?
February 7, 2010, 12:48 amArthurKirkland says:
Mr. Blair is unapologetic about a military invasion of the wrong country, and Mrs. Blair is partial to jaw-breakers, each position influenced by their religion.
Anyone know which religion they espouse? We probably should maintain a careful watch on a religion that could be used to support violence like this.
February 7, 2010, 12:50 amArthurKirkland says:
Unless she is unusually dumb, Mrs. Blair might have been trying to attract attention to an issue or cause with that statement, which seems the type of utterance (similar to racist comments, for example) that a modest level of self-awareness would censor even if the underlying thought were genuinely held. In other words, most bigots know enough to muzzle themselves in public.
February 7, 2010, 12:56 amreadery says:
The article says “a more lenient sentence.” More lenient than what? It provides absolutely nothing to compare to it. In order to show discrimination, one must show that others have gotten worse treatment.
This simply hasn’t been done here. What is the typical sentence for a first offender for this type of offense in England? Is there any evidence that the defendant even had an unusual sentence, let alone that religion was actually the cause of an unusual sentence, as distinct from part of a defendant-specific “don’t do it again” lecture given while handing out an otherwise standard sentence for a first offender?
Most European countries are slower to hand out prison sentences than the U.S. is. It’s entirely possible a person with no prior criminal record wouldn’t ordinarily get prison time for this type of first offense in England. In order to show that a problem is caused by something, one must first show that there is a problem in the first place. Step 2 seems to have been jumped to without bothering with Step 1.
February 7, 2010, 1:23 amzuch says:
I’m not sure about that. Most bigots see no need to muzzle themselves (if they’re even aware of how they’re perceived).
Cheers,
February 7, 2010, 1:32 amreadery says:
It’s possible that there is a judicial equivalent of Hawthorne effect going on. Some people may respond to being told that they’re getting a special break just for them even if it isn’t actually very special or really just for them. This could be all that’s going on. For the approach to work, different defendants would have to be told about the special break in different, individualized ways.
Perhaps Judge Blair hands out a lot of suspended sentences, and tells every first-time offender they’re getting something special because she feels specially confident they’ll be able to avoid crime in the future because of [insert defendent-specific reason here].
February 7, 2010, 1:39 amzuch says:
FWIW, ties to the community, job, position, social standing, are often considered in deciding bail (and may play a factor in parole considerations). They may even play into sentencing. It’s not too surprising that religious devotion might not play a part as well (and this may have been one of a number of factors that played in the decision here).
That all said, I don’t see any excuse as to why such religious devotion (or any of the other things above) ought to be a reason for an easier sentence. Some might argue that it ought to be a reason for less lenity. Didn’t they obviously know better?
Cheers,
February 7, 2010, 1:42 amFC says:
Given her stated sympathy with Palestinian suicide bombers, I hope she doesn’t get any terrorism cases.
February 7, 2010, 1:42 amSuspending a Jail Sentence Because the Defendant Is (Supposedly) Devoutly Religious | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] link: Suspending a Jail Sentence Because the Defendant Is (Supposedly) Devoutly Religious [...]
February 7, 2010, 5:10 amFub says:
A Church of Mammon devotee?
February 7, 2010, 6:27 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Bear in mind that this is Great Britain, which has an established church. Favoring the religious may be legitimate in questions of law there, however outrageous it may seem from an American point of view.
February 7, 2010, 7:26 amJoe says:
A few of the comments here rightly suggest we need more information. Others suggest kneejerk reactions are the result (well one) of such lack of info.
February 7, 2010, 8:37 amjccamp says:
When passing sentence, judges can consider whether the defendant has accepted responsibility for his/her actions, whether the defendant recognizes the error of the criminalized actions, and whether there is a likelihood of a repeat. In the cited case, the defendant pled guilty, accepting responsibility. The defendant was coming from prayers at the time of the battery – as ridiculous as that sounds – which might indicate a religious person who presumably understood the difference between right and wrong, even if unable to control those pesky impulses at times, and who might be expected to try to observe the rules in the future. I would think that recognizing that the defendant is an observant member of a religion which proscribes such behavior (as the crime) might be useful, much as if the judge recognized that the defendant was a member in good standing of the local BAR association, and that (BAR membership) bespoke of the defendant’s presumed good character – as ridiculous as that sounds.
February 7, 2010, 9:25 amKen Arromdee says:
Saying “being a member of the bar association shows good moral character” is merely stupid. Saying “being a member of a religion shows good moral character” is bigotry. Commonly believed bigotry, but still bigotry.
February 7, 2010, 10:09 amChris Black says:
As a Brit, I can say that although we have an established church, we certainly have NO tradition of treating the devout more leniently….
February 7, 2010, 10:11 amBob from Ohio says:
Is she a lawyer or a judge? I know she is a “Queen’s Counsel” but I thought that just meant some sort of senior barrister.
February 7, 2010, 10:19 amA. (thought) Criminal says:
How religious? Or which religion? I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned the fact that Sharia law is officially established in the UK (for mostly civil and some criminal cases), and that it doesn’t call for equal protection or treatment of individuals. Although her’s is not yet a Sharia court, Cherie was probably intimidated into going along with the general flow – it’s all the rage, so to speak.
February 7, 2010, 10:26 amCornellian says:
Is she a lawyer or a judge? I know she is a “Queen’s Counsel” but I thought that just meant some sort of senior barrister.
Queen’s Counsel is just a title meaning that the government has recognized your awesome lawyerly skills. It certainly helps with marketing your practice but not much else.
The judge thing must be a part-time gig. A QC title would have nothing to do with that.
February 7, 2010, 10:39 amrmd says:
I don’t know about Ms. Blair’s religious affiliation, but if you want to know that of the offender, it’s in the very first sentence of the linked article.
February 7, 2010, 10:51 amChris Black says:
My understanding was that Sharia law is only applicable for civil cases in the UK in the same way that parties can agree to arbitrate through a wide variety of bodies (eg Jewish Courts in the UK, or arbitration in New York for marine cases).
Having said that I don’t want to see it spreading.
Can you give an example of its use for criminal matters in the UK? I’d be pleased to know.
February 7, 2010, 10:55 amArthurKirkland says:
Which is intensely ridiculous.
February 7, 2010, 11:26 amdearieme says:
The criminal is a follower of Mohammed. Mrs Blair is a follower of the Pope. “Bear in mind that this is Great Britain, which has an established church.” Actually, it has two. “Favoring the religious may be legitimate in questions of law there…”: oh no it bloody isn’t.
It is worth bearing in mind that many Brits suppose Mrs Blair to be an unpleasant piece of work, and entertain the possibility that she might be two sandwiches short of a picnic.
February 7, 2010, 12:11 pmpublic_defender says:
Let’s look a bit more charitably at the judge’s statements (as any reviewing court should and would). Judge Blair said she believed that the defendant’s religious code made him appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. She also said that his lifelong devotion to living by a religious code showed that this action was an exception, not the rule, and that it was unlikely to be repeated.
If a person acted out of character once, that’s a legitimate mitigating factor. So is the defendant’s appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions. I don’t see how it’s improper to consider the defendant’s devout faith (as borne out in practice, of course) as evidence of either. In fact, it would be religious discrimination if Judge Blair held that only a good secular belief structure and lifestyle counted as mitigation.
Trial judges tend to speak in much simpler, blunter, terms than appellate judges. They are, after all, often speaking extemporaneously instead of reading a prepared text vetted by law clerks and other staff. So they get a little more leeway for less than elegant construction.
This case seems very ordinary. It also seems like out-of-context gotcha by people who don’t understand how judges weigh legitimate sentencing factors.
February 7, 2010, 2:16 pmSandy MacHoots says:
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us.
February 7, 2010, 3:00 pmTo see oursels as others see us . . . .
public_defender says:
A conservative evangelical Christian has led an honorable life. He got married young, got a decent job, worked hard, raised kids, and used his Christian moral code to guide him to an honest and productive life well into his 40′s. Then, one day, he gets ticked about something and slugs someone. His Christian beliefs kick in and he understands what he did was wrong. At sentencing, he explains that his Christian beliefs guided him on the right path all his life until that one day when he slipped. He credibly says (and the judge believes) that his decades as an honest and productive citizen were founded on his Christian belief, and that his Christian belief will continue to keep him on the straight and narrow.
I think it would be perfectly fair for a judge to cite that belief (which the defendant has put into practice) as supporting a judgment that 1) the defendant led a decent life for decades; 2) the crime was a true aberration; 3) the defendant has a moral code that will make it unlikely that he will repeat the crime.
February 7, 2010, 3:14 pmjccamp says:
Ken –
I didn’t say “being a member of a religion shows good moral character” or any such thing. I suggested that a judge could reasonably consider that an observant member of a religion which proscribed bad behavior might avoid such behavior in the future, as a tenet of faith. I compared it to a judge, as example, considering that a first time offender had been a member in good stead of the local BAR for some time and thus, apparently met the BAR standards for that same time and might again predictably for the future.
I realize you don’t know me, but to suggest that I equate membership in the BAR with moral character is a serious misread. I know too many lawyers. Back to character, neither do I equate church membership, for that matter. I was suggesting that what Blair did is not that uncommon, in terms of equating a person’s associations and lifestyle with a potential for future criminality, and thus the need for a deterrent or punishment sentence.
Maybe I wasn’t clear.
Arthur Kirkland –
I wish I had $5 for every time I heard a criminal defense lawyer tell a judge or jury “…and my client is a good, church-going man…”
Save your sanctimony. Your closing argument is showing.
February 7, 2010, 3:22 pmyankee says:
Is there any authority that says people can’t do the same in the U.S.? The Establishment Clause would prevent an American court from determining whether Sharia had been applied “correctly,” but they could agree to arbitration by the (hypothetical) American Sharia Association just as by the American Arbitration Association.
February 7, 2010, 3:23 pmjccamp says:
…and I see that, while I was typing, public_defender has explained much better than I ever could have.
Thank you.
February 7, 2010, 3:45 pmArthurKirkland says:
Until a shred of evidence exists that religious or church-going people are to any measurable degree better than other people in thought or deed, I see no reason to consider such a conclusion reasonable.
A record of many centuries counsels against holding one’s breath.
February 7, 2010, 3:51 pmArthurKirkland says:
What if the defendant led the same life but ascribed it to his devotion to the teachings of Bruce Springsteen, or his membership in the Official Simpsons Fan Club, to a fervent belief that reason is to be preferred to superstition at every turn?
I do not understand how membership in any club — a church, a fraternity, a glee club, the Moose or the Masons — properly counts for anything at sentencing.
February 7, 2010, 3:59 pmpublic_defender says:
I don’t claim that religious people are automatically better people. At sentencing, judges aren’t looking at the group, they are looking at a defendant. And yes, if a defendant’s lifelong, productive membership in a fraternal organization helped show a moral code, the understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions, and the unlikelihood of a return to violence, I would cite to that.
Of course, the judge is allowed to disbelieve a claim. The judge is allowed to decide that the defendant is not sincere. The judge is allowed to decide that the defendant’s specific moral code would not help that defendant confine his actions to those that the law permits.
I think many people don’t understand the powerful force for good that religion can be in the lives of many criminal defendants. The State should not favor one faith over another (or over no faith), but the State should not discourage defendants from using religion beliefs to help keep them within the expectations of society.
And what’s the alternative? All assaults are not alike. Some violations of any given code section are worse than others. Some individual defendants are more dangerous than others. Judges must have leeway to separate the momentarily stupid from the unfixably bad. And a religious defendant who has lived a decent life with one mistake, and who can show that his faith will help ,make sure that the mistake will not likely be repeated should not be treated wore than a secular defendant who has a non-religious reason why the mistake will not be repeated.
February 7, 2010, 4:50 pmjccamp says:
AK –
“I do not understand how membership in any club — a church, a fraternity, a glee club, the Moose or the Masons — properly counts for anything at sentencing.”
But you do know that frequently, such do count, as least ostensibly? I think the discussion was whether the wife of Tony Blair deserved (all the) opprobrium for doing what happens (in other courtrooms) on a regular basis in one form or another. To the degree that there are practicing criminal defense attorneys here, I wonder how many have presented testimony or proffer regarding a defendant’s ties to the community, charitable work, church attendance and the like.
Plus, I might draw some distinction between membership in a fraternity or the Moose, say, and an established church. In theory, anyway, the church is supposed to have some codified fashion for living your life and your relationship to God and fellow man.
February 7, 2010, 4:59 pmDaniel Shinkle says:
ArthurKirkland says:
I do not understand how membership in any club — a church, a fraternity, a glee club, the Moose or the Masons — properly counts for anything at sentencing.
One factor at sentencing is the likelihood of rehabilitation. A person who surround himself with people who will encourage better conduct is (believed to be) more likely to succeed in improving that conduct. So support of glee club, fraternity, church, or Mosque can be a relevant sentencing factor. Even if the judge doubts that the church, glee club, Mosque, or fraternity will be helpful, it may be useful to cite it as a factor if that will serve as a reminder to the defendant that this group of people is relying on him to become a better person. “Show me that you are a good {glee club member} and comply with your terms of probation.” If the defendant values the glee club highly enough, that type of encouragement may be helpful.
February 7, 2010, 5:35 pmpublic_defender says:
I once brought in a client’s minister as part of my evidence for early release. My point was to show that my client had a structure of decent people to move back into. That kind of structure can impose its own sanctions for minor stupidity before minor stupidity starts to become criminal.
You can’t just say, “my client has found God” and sit down. Sentencing judges hear a lot of insincere “I found God” BS, so they are a tough audience. But you can do good for your client if you can make a hard-headed argument that this particular client’s faith, practice, and community combine to show 1) the client understands the wrongfulness of his actions and 2) that he is not likely to re-offend.
February 7, 2010, 7:01 pmjccamp says:
PD -
I’m a cynic and a retired cop, but even I understand that some people don’t belong in jail, and that religion might one of the things that differentiates them. Not the only thing, not the most important thing, but certainly a legitimate consideration.
I know how this sounds, but some of my best friends are attorneys, even – perish the thought – criminal defense attorneys. I spent a lot of my adult life in a courtroom, and I have definite ideas about what represents good (and bad) lawyering. I can admire a spirited advocacy, whether on behalf of that first offender or even a hardened piece of sociopath felon trash.
If you know what I mean.
February 7, 2010, 8:05 pmpublic_defender says:
Jcamp, thanks. I also think the point you made earlier about this being the kind of thing that happens every day is spot on. Judges make quick decisions about sentences, often with little or only cursory explanation. It’s scary how ad hoc sentencing hearings are. Some places, the prosecutor doesn’t even bother to show up most of the time. All too often, the defense attorney does zero prep work and just begs for a low sentence. But arguments about structure (religious or otherwise) in a defendant’s life are regular parts of the system.
And just as you can appreciate good lawyering, we defense attorneys appreciate good police work. I find that when everyone in the system does their job honestly and competently, things tend to come out OK.
February 7, 2010, 8:31 pmjccamp says:
I agree. FWIW, I tried to run a clean shop. The process is always more important than any individual results. Thanks.
February 7, 2010, 8:37 pmChrisTS says:
Was the victim of the assault a religious person?
February 7, 2010, 10:04 pmReader says:
First, why did you write that he was “devoutly” religious? It doesn’t say that anywhere, and I think that would be a very different and surprising result – why did you add that the judge thought it was relevant that he is “devout”? (Are you even sure he is devout?)
Second, strictly speaking, it doesn’t even say he gets a reduced sentence as a result merely of being religious. It says twice that he is religious – once it says he is religious and hasn’t been in trouble before; once it says he is religious and knows what he did was wrong. It seems to link his religion to characteristics that are obviously relevant to sentencing.
February 7, 2010, 10:06 pmjccamp says:
Chris TS -
The original article didn’t say, although from the name, the victim might have been Muslim as well. Quoting
“The court was told that in August last year Miah [defendant], 25, from Redbridge, northeast London, went from prayers at a mosque to a bank, where he got into an argument with Mohammed Furcan over who was first in the queue. He punched Mr Furcan in the face and ran out. Mr Furcan followed him but was knocked to the pavement, breaking his jaw.”
Ouch.
February 7, 2010, 10:26 pmArthurKirkland says:
Forget the religion angle — anyone who breaks another’s jaw over the issue of location in a line (absent a strong self-defense angle) should spend some time in jail. The judge made a bad call even before she said something stupid about religion. Were I adjudicating that defendant, there isn’t a sob story, a salvation story, a ‘good works’ story, or any other story that would spare the convicted felon a chance to reflect in jail for at least a few weeks, probably longer.
Would it be proper for a judge who dislikes religion to hold professed religiosity against a defendant? Should have known better, clearly does not respond well to moral teaching, doesn’t seem to be guided by reason and reality, whatever. My answer is that religion should not be held against a defendant, but it would make as much sense as a break based on religion. And if religion is going to be counted on a consistent basis by judges who favor religion, it might be appropriate for judges who disfavor religion to even the scale.
February 7, 2010, 10:28 pmpublic_defender says:
No. This is just a straw man–no one is arguing anything like that. No one is arguing that religiosity (or lack of religiosity) should be an independent sentencing factor. But to the extent that a defendant’s religious faith casts light on relevant factors, it can be used. For example, some whackos have perverted Christianity to support their desires to have sex with under-age girls. If they continued to cling to their beliefs at sentencing, the judge can and should use that faith against them. If a judge can’t consider religion, the judge couldn’t count that belief against the defendant.
The same applies for secular affiliations. An admitted gang member who continues to express support for his gang (against the advice of his public defender, of course) would likely face a higher sentence.
February 8, 2010, 5:54 amdisconnect says:
I’d have a lot less of a problem with this:
“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you
are a religious person andhave not been in trouble before. You are areligiousman and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”Hey, look! Same effect without all the controversy!
February 8, 2010, 9:54 amepeeist says:
“public_defender” and “jdcamp” make a lot of sense, as do some others…
Even if one doesn’t agree with a particular person’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs, if they appear genuine and lessen the likelihood of reoffending, that’s something that should be taken into account.
Consider the converse: “Even though I consider Mr. X less likely to reoffend because of his personal beliefs, family and friends, it’s not politically correct to let the chance of future harm influence me. I don’t know why we bother having these sentencing hearings.”
The principles of sentencing may vary, but likelihood of reoffending is often a consideration. If someone is genuinely devoutly religious, a learned atheist humanist Kantian ethicist, has supportive friends and family, whatever, if those factors make the person less likely to reoffend, then they are properly taken into account.
Note also, re the suspended sentence generally, from a prior post the person fled, was pursued by the victim, and then the victim’s jaw was broken. So there may have been e.g. a minor altercation (deserving a suspended sentence) which the pursuit turned into a more major one? I don’t know all the facts, which is something that a few others on this board have also admitted!
February 8, 2010, 12:03 pmKen Arromdee says:
By your reasoning the judge could increase the sentence of someone who’s a Muslim child molester, on the grounds that he reveres Mohammed and Mohammed had a 9 year old wife.
February 8, 2010, 12:50 pmKen Arromdee says:
The idea that religions make their members more moral is bigotry, not truth. So if you really think that Mr. X is less likely to reoffend because of his personal beliefs, your thoughts are inaccurate and being politically correct really is better.
(Note that you can’t save this idea by saying “I don’t think religious believers in general are more moral, but I do think that ones like Mr. X are.” That would logically imply that believers who aren’t like Mr. X are less moral than atheists, which is a position you probably don’t want to defend.)
February 8, 2010, 12:59 pmepeeist says:
You are mischaracterizing both my point and the issue generally. The issue is whether THIS defendant’s personal (religious, in this instance) beliefs made THIS defendant less likely to reoffend.
If you want to argue about the morality of religious believers generally, that’s a VERY different, much more complicated argument.
To put it in terms you might appreciate, if someone has a genuine (persuasive evidence of in the sentencing) devotion to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, and that church’s tenets make the person less likely to reoffend, that should be taken into account. If someone is a virulently atheistic anti-organized-religion person who, because of those beliefs, is less likely to reoffend because he or she wants to prove how much better atheists are, then that should be taken into account also (i.e. positively, the person is less likely to reoffend). Or whatever.
February 8, 2010, 1:52 pmepeeist says:
No, you are mischaracterizing the argument (again…). Obviously, one can be an adherent to a set of ideals or beliefs, without therefore necessarily being prone to imitate a historical holder/founder/whatever of those beliefs.
Following Islam no more makes one more likely to molest children than being a loyal American who idolizes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson makes one more likely to engage in slave ownership. One can admire (some things about) Andrew Jackson without being prone to duel with those who insult you or your wife (or “wife”…). Etc.
Now, for a SPECIFIC person, his or her beliefs, religious or otherwise, might make that SPECIFIC person more (or less) likely to reoffend, and if so, that should be taken into account. That means that if a specific follower (or claimed follower) of Christianity or Islam or Dawkins or whatever is more or less likely to reoffend because of that person’s beliefs, then go ahead and take it into account.
February 8, 2010, 2:41 pm