• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Treat Amir more leniently : Brearley

What do you think? Aamir should be treated with more leniency?


  • Total voters
    18

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I think if Amir had made a clean breast of it I'd have been more minded to agree with Brearley. As I recall it though the trial judge didn't accept that his admission of guilt was a full disclosure, effectively saying Amir was still being less than candid.

I must admit I'm still in two minds as to whether Amir is an ingenue lead astray or just an idiot. Or a combination of both.
I am willing to a thousand dollars that he was up to his neck in skull duggery in other matches. If it had've been a full confession he would've been treated better.
 

JBH001

International Regular
I said he should be treated leniently in the other thread (the first one IIRC). I haven't seen any reason to change my mind since then.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Speaking personally I think doing away with sentencing discounts for guilty pleas is an excellent idea ......................
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Speaking personally I think doing away with sentencing discounts for guilty pleas is an excellent idea ......................
Not sure if you're serious or not, but that would ensure that every case goes to trial, which would be a huge burden on the tax payers. Also, it would take away any incentive for a "less important" defendant to testify against the "big guns" if there's no promise of a lenient sentence.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just making the point about who the winners would be if there were no discounts for plea - to be entirely serious I don't think that the one third off that you get in the UK for an early plea is actually enough - if the government really wants to cut down on trials they should be a bit more imaginative
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
He's saying that because he passionately believes in it. Nothing, I'm sure, to do with the fact that he earns more from cases that go to trial...

Edit: beaten to it by the great man himself
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Just making the point about who the winners would be if there were no discounts for plea - to be entirely serious I don't think that the one third off that you get in the UK for an early plea is actually enough - if the government really wants to cut down on trials they should be a bit more imaginative
One third off is all you can get? The prosecution has no latitude? Here in the US, the prosecution can pretty much decide on any plea deal they want. Hence there's massive incentive to plead guilty and make a deal.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
One third off is all you can get? The prosecution has no latitude? Here in the US, the prosecution can pretty much decide on any plea deal they want. Hence there's massive incentive to plead guilty and make a deal.
The view here is that it's not really the prosecution who should make these decisions (although that's perhaps an over simplification). It's up to the Court. I think there's a sense of looking at the US criminal justice system with a bit of horror actually.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
The view here is that it's not really the prosecution who should make these decisions (although that's perhaps an over simplification). It's up to the Court. I think there's a sense of looking at the US criminal justice system with a bit of horror actually.
Ah I see. I can understand that view I suppose but I would argue that since it's the prosecution that has the burden of making the case, they should also have the latitude on plea deals. If they overstep their power and come up with a vastly unfair deal, the judge can always reject it. That preservers a system of checks and balances.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
One third off is all you can get? The prosecution has no latitude? Here in the US, the prosecution can pretty much decide on any plea deal they want. Hence there's massive incentive to plead guilty and make a deal.
Karla Homolka likes this post.
 

Top