Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Furball]

Sorry for the confusion, due to a typo my post said "taking crap" when I meant "talking crap".

Yes this was a serious case, but a life ban is an extreme sanction which in my view would have been disproportionately harsh.

The fact that the guy was 18 was relevant in two fairly obvious ways.

First, youth is a mitigating factor. No-one aged 18 has the same level of judgment, or resilience to persuasion or other forms of pressure, that they do when somewhat more mature.

And second, a life ban is a much longer sentence for an 18 year old than for someone in, say, his mid to late 20s. If Amir and Asif had both been banned for life, Asif's ban would effectively have been for about seven years longer and he'd have lost perhaps 90% of his Test career compared with perhaps 50% for Asif. So, the very young guy with a clean prior record ends up with a tougher sentence than the older repeat offender. Thats hardly fair, surely?

Disagree with your first factor. Most jurisdictions classify an 18 year old as an adult with the competence to make major decisions. We're not dealing with a 5 year old child who didn't know any better here.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Sorry for the confusion, due to a typo my post said "taking crap" when I meant "talking crap".

Yes this was a serious case, but a life ban is an extreme sanction which in my view would have been disproportionately harsh.

The fact that the guy was 18 was relevant in two fairly obvious ways.

First, youth is a mitigating factor. No-one aged 18 has the same level of judgment, or resilience to persuasion or other forms of pressure, that they do when somewhat more mature.

And second, a life ban is a much longer sentence for an 18 year old than for someone in, say, his mid to late 20s. If Amir and Asif had both been banned for life, Asif's ban would effectively have been for about seven years longer and he'd have lost perhaps 90% of his Test career compared with perhaps 50% for Asif. So, the very young guy with a clean prior record ends up with a tougher sentence than the older repeat offender. Thats hardly fair, surely?

Has it actually been established yet he was 18 or his age still just a random figure?

You can't say we won't give someone a life ban because an older guy got in a longer career before being caught. Same as you don't give out a different length of jail sentence to a criminal or if you have a death penalty you don't let them live to a certain age before bumping them off. The only factor is if someone is naive or whatever because of their age and that then affects their punishment. It doesn't work otherwise.

They all should get the toughest sentence possible because they lying constantly about it, did not admit guilt or co-operate with enquiries. That's the only reason not to give a maximum ban.

 

[zaremba]

The poor boy Ameer arguments don't wash on any level. If he's not playing then someone else is. For all the things he misses out on someone else gets a shot. I prefer to think of the person who's missing out because that cheat is playing.

Every game before and after Ameer plays in will be sullied and the game of cricket itself is damaged. This goes way beyond one individual. If you look at the bigger picture there's only one punishment you can have - a life ban. The thought of Ameer playing again for Pakistan is just ghastly for the game, it will bring the spot fixing affair back into the spotlight. The focus will not be on the field of play. You can't underestimate the damage it will do. Personally I don't watch snooker any more since John Higgins agreed to lose some frames for a quarter of a million (he was let off with a pathetic 6 month ban in a whitewash, didn't miss any major tournaments).

Yes he deserved a ban, despite his age. But a life ban? Nope. Unnecessarily harsh and disproportionate.

Higgins I agree with you about. Tbf he got acquitted of the main charges he faced, although how he managed that I'll never know.

 

[Furball]

Has it actually been established yet he was 18 or his age still just a random figure?

You can't say we won't give someone a life ban because an older guy got in a longer career before being caught. Same as you don't give out a different length of jail sentence to a criminal or if you have a death penalty you don't let them live to a certain age before bumping them off. The only factor is if someone is naive or whatever because of their age and that then affects their punishment. It doesn't work otherwise.

They all should get the toughest sentence possible because they lying constantly about it, did not admit guilt or co-operate with enquiries. That's the only reason not to give a maximum ban.

IIRC that caveat doesn't apply to Asif.

 

[zaremba]

Disagree with your first factor. Most jurisdictions classify an 18 year old as an adult with the competence to make major decisions. We're not dealing with a 5 year old child who didn't know any better here.

Someone may be above the age of criminal responsibility and yet still old enough for their youth to be regarded as a powerful mitigating factor.

No-one is suggesting that Amir shouldn't be found guilty because he was too young to understand the difference between right and wrong. It doesn't follow however that he should be treated as harshly as someone aged several years older.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Just by-the-by, I still see no mention of this on cricinfo or the Beeb.

Would've thought this was pretty huge news in the cricket world so this surprises me more than a little.

 

[zaremba]

Has it actually been established yet he was 18 or his age still just a random figure?

You can't say we won't give someone a life ban because an older guy got in a longer career before being caught. Same as you don't give out a different length of jail sentence to a criminal or if you have a death penalty you don't let them live to a certain age before bumping them off. The only factor is if someone is naive or whatever because of their age and that then affects their punishment. It doesn't work otherwise.

They all should get the toughest sentence possible because they lying constantly about it, did not admit guilt or co-operate with enquiries. That's the only reason not to give a maximum ban.

I agree that lying is an aggravating factor.

I agree that his age of 18 is not necessarily accurate but we currently don't know otherwise.

I disagree that the death penalty is in any way a helpful analogy here. Thankfully most civilised countries abolished it long ago (the top 10 countries for executions last year were China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Uncle Sam, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Bangladesh and Somalia). Even in those states it tends to be reserved for crimes of the utmost severity, which in the scheme of things 2 no-balls bowled by an 18-year-old ain't.

A far better analogy is with prison sentences, which are indeed set by reference not to someone's entire life (or career) but to a finite length of time. Hence, someone who commits an offence at age 18 will not serve any longer than someone who commits an equivalent offence at age 25. That to me seems like fairly straightforward justice and fairness, and I'm slightly puzzled that some people appear to have some difficulty with that concept.

 

[Jono]

The poor boy Ameer arguments don't wash on any level. If he's not playing then someone else is. For all the things he misses out on someone else gets a shot. I prefer to think of the person who's missing out because that cheat is playing.

I found this incredibly convincing. Good point.

 

[zaremba]

I found this incredibly convincing. Good point.

Straw man though. No-one's saying he shouldn't be banned. The only question is, should it be a life ban (in his case perhaps 17 years) or less?

 

[Jono]

No I agree with you there. I just don't this his ban should be reduced, and I find Scaly's point incredibly persuasive.

There are a million points being debated in this thread, but its kind of a "pro Aamir" and "anti Aamir" side taking when that really isnt occurring. People just have different views regarding the length of the ban.

 

[zaremba]

No I agree with you there. I just don't this his ban should be reduced, and I find Scaly's point incredibly persuasive.

There are a million points being debated in this thread, but its kind of a "pro Aamir" and "anti Aamir" side taking when that really isnt occurring. People just have different views regarding the length of the ban.

Yeah I don't think his ban should be reduced. I just don't have quite the same bloodlust as some of my colleagues on this forum, that's all.

 

[NasserFan207]

If someone else did it ,they would get shot down as ridiculous,nonsense,biased,immoral with several posts full of expletives tbh.

Why?

 

[Furball]

Why?

He's playing the victim card. Badly.

 

[Cevno]

Why?

Nothing to do with you tbf.

 

[NasserFan207]

Eh.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Straw man though. No-one's saying he shouldn't be banned. The only question is, should it be a life ban (in his case perhaps 17 years) or less?

It's not a straw man though. If he stays banned for 5 years and then the fact is if Ameer is still playing to a high level then someone is going to have to make way when that period elapses. Is that fair?

Obviously all the previously mentioned arguments about the bigger picture play a part as well. For me the fairness issue - unless something is unjust - it is less important when compared to the huge impact on the game of cricket. I don't have a problem with a harsh or lenient punishment if it serves cricket. That is to some extent what happens elsewhere in law with people accepting guilt and giving evidence against other criminals for a reduced sentence and so forth.

 

[TheChevyBomb]

so what would you call the one year bans which were handed to gibbs, nicky boje and henry williams after it was proved that they actually tried to throw a match,, which was MATCH FIXING and Im not sure but they were also allowed to carry on with domestic cricket,,spot fixing is much smaller offence if you compare it with what the south africans had done,,, if one wants to make an example it should be made out of asif and butt,, specially asif as this is not the first time he has been involved into something controversial... and about shane warne,, he didnt only get a second chance,, he had problems with his wife,,, Then he was paid to provide information to a bookie along with Mark Waugh and this issue was brushed under the carpet by australian cricket board and then Mr Warne was involved in that drug scandal and also in a rape case,, and if he got all those chances because of what he could do on the cricket field then why not aamir and he is still young,,its really funny when people like shane warne calls for him to be banned for life

 

[SpaceMonkey]

You can't base the punishment on how good (or bad) a player is at cricket. Some people are saying Amir is so good he should get a lesser ban than if he was ****. WTF?

He deserves the ban and to be fair he's lucky he'll be able to play cricket again at a still young age.

 

[TheChevyBomb]

What about shane warne mark waugh, and the south african trio who were only banned for a year or six months only,,, why them for 5 years,, the law should be equal for everyone,, fair enough warne was banned for a year for dopping,, but he was also involved with a bookie along with waugh,, they were never banned let alone being fined,, no one made an example out of wasim akram, waqar younis mushtaq ahmed and the gang when they were involved in MATCH FIXING not spot fixing,, they were all fined with ridiculous amounts of money,,, small fines thats it,, why him now,, IPL had been involved in match fixing it has been proved but everythings been hushed hushed,, why because BCCI runs it,,, thats just double standards,, if other people were given a second chance then he should be no exception

 

[Furball]

What about shane warne mark waugh, and the south african trio who were only banned for a year or six months only,,, why them for 5 years,, the law should be equal for everyone,, fair enough warne was banned for a year for dopping,, but he was also involved with a bookie along with waugh,, they were never banned let alone being fined,, no one made an example out of wasim akram, waqar younis mushtaq ahmed and the gang when they were involved in MATCH FIXING not spot fixing,, they were all fined with ridiculous amounts of money,,, small fines thats it,, why him now,, IPL had been involved in match fixing it has been proved but everythings been hushed hushed,, why because BCCI runs it,,, thats just double standards,, if other people were given a second chance then he should be no exception