It must be made equally clear, both to those who are apprehended and to those who might be tempted to behave in this way in the future, that the court will have no hesitation in marking the seriousness of what has occurred and it will act in such a way in the present case as will, I hope, send out a clear and unambiguous message as to the consequences to the individual. It is a message which I trust will deter others from engaging in this type of behaviour in the future.

So, ‘making an example’ of certain individuals then.

IE, not really totally fair and objective sentencing. Smash up a shop or something whilst out with a drunken group of mates, and it’s not as ‘serious’ an offence. Even if the crime is exactly the same. The reasons and motivations for the criminal acts should not be a factor in sentencing. Crime is crime, and should be treated fairly, impassionately and without individual prejudice.

Basically this judge is saying certain individuals will be treated with prejudice. He’s not fit to hold office, imo.

‘OOh I’m angry about what happened so I’ll give this lot much heavier sentences’.

Out of order, and sets a dangerous precedent. Speshly when so many fraudsters get away with unfeasibly light sentences…

MP deliberately steals £22,000 of our money, gets 18 months.

Young lad wanders into an already smashed open shop, steals £3.50 worth of water, gets 3 years.

Tell me where Justice is in all that?

One Law for them, and another for Us, is all that says.

Justice is meant to be impartial and without prejudice. It clearly isn’t. What a joke. Why should we respect such an obviously biased and flawed system?

I notice you chose not to post the paragraph after that Fred…

The people of Manchester and Salford are all entitled to look to the law for protection and to the courts to punish those who behaved so outrageously. It would be wholly unreal therefore for me to have regard only to the specific acts which you committed as if they had been committed in isolation. In my judgment it would be a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participant on their own. Those acts were not committed in isolation and, as I have already indicated, it is a fact which substantially aggravates the gravity of this offence. The court has to pay regard to is the level and nature of the criminal conduct that night, to its scale, the extent to which it was premeditated, the number of persons engaged the events of that evening and finally, in the context of the overall picture, the specific acts of the individual defendant.

I notice you chose not to post the paragraph after that Fred…

Impressive powers of observation there Zulu-Eleven.

What else did you notice about Elfin’s post ?

I didn’t see this earlier, but if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. And whilst I’ve sped and even dodged train fares in my youth, I’ve never walked into a shop and nicked something.

Who cares if he was white and middle class? Should he be treated differently?

No I din’t. That’s just a load of emotive waffle to justify his knee-jerk reactionism.

The former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Paul Mendelle QC, told BBC 5 live: “When people get caught up and act out of character, in a similar way, there is a danger that the courts themselves may get caught up in a different kind of collective hysteria – I’m not suggesting violence or anything like that – but in purporting to reflect the public mood actually go over the top and hand out sentences which are too long and too harsh.”

See, a top QC agrees with me.

Mother-of-two Ursula Nevin, from Manchester, was jailed for five months for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they had been looted from a city centre store.

FFS. How disproportionate is that? Why isn’t a Community Service order or fine not enough? Any other time, and it would be. Just because certain events capture the public imagination far more, due to media saturation and sensationalisation, why should an individual who has the right to expect a fair trial and sentence, be used as a scapegoat? How about Society as a whole taking responsibility, rather than everyone blaming everyone else for why things are going wrong?

What a disgrace.

This is the equivalent of a referee not seeing an incident clearly, then allowing his decision to be influenced by the reaction of the crowd.

How about Society as a whole taking responsibility, rather than everyone blaming everyone else for why things are going wrong?

I think the judge covered that quite succinctly actually:

I have had regard to everything said in the Pre-sentence report You have a bad recent record. As recently as 25th February 2011 you were convicted of shoplifting, and on 4th May 2011 you received a 10 week sentence for your failures to comply with community orders imposed for offences of battery committed in August 2010. You were released from prison as recently as 12th July 2011. You blame your position on the end of your relationship. Many endure that happening without resorting to crime.

I think the judge covered that quite succinctly actually

Except that it’s a completely different case to the one which Elfie is referring to. In that case the guy got 16 months, not 5.

But maybe you feel you can just post any old quote from various unrelated cases just to back your stance ?

I didn’t see this earlier, but if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. And whilst I’ve sped and even dodged train fares in my youth, I’ve never walked into a shop and nicked something.

Who cares if he was white and middle class? Should he be treated differently?

The dodged train fare was a criminal act and would’ve been worth more than the case of water stolen from Lidl. If you’d been caught, presumably you’d have no complaints about a 6-month prison sentence?

MP deliberately steals £22,000 of our money, gets 18 months.

Young lad wanders into an already smashed open shop, steals £3.50 worth of water, gets 3 years.

Is this some other water thief who’s been give 3 years? Thought this thread was talking about a guy sentanced to 6 months…..

You’ve missed the point Z-11. Handing out disproportionately harsh sentences to appease public anger is not acting responsibly; it’s simply attempting to be seen to do what the ‘public’ want; little short of mob rule basically.

Is this some other water thief who’s been give 3 years? Thought this thread was talking about a guy sentanced to 6 months…..

Yeah my mistake, which then makes my point a bit unclear but even 6 months for stealing £3.50 worth of water, essentially little more than shoplifting, compared to just 18 months for deliberately abusing the position of trust given to him by the people he’s sposed to represent ffs, is totally disproportionate. The latter is a far, far worse crime, and if the proportionality of sentencing were the same, surely the thieving MP should be looking at what, 6 years? More?

I have no idea where I got the 3 years from. Trying to do different things all at once can’t multitask oh sod it can’t be bothered any more I’m right and that’s that end of.

Good night all.

it’s simply attempting to be seen to do what the ‘public’ want; little short of mob rule basically

hardly mob rule … i’d say more like democracy. if the public want harsh sentencing, then its upto the courts to dish it out … thats the point of the courts.

Cant have it all ways … moaning that offenders dont get punished, moaning that they do. You’re never going to please all the people all of the time … so it falls to pleasing the majority of the people … which i personally would say that silent majority ( i.e. the bulk of law abiding people would like to see harsh lessons, but dont really speak out about it ) … so tough tittie, dont want the time? dont do the crime.

Its not rocket science to not steal / rob / burgle … so they only have themselves to blame.

6 months for stealing £3.50 worth of water

No, 6 months for burglary

The PC Harwood case will be interesting. He is currently suspended on full pay.

No, 6 months for burglary

Do all burglary convictions result in a 6-month sentence? Of course not, because they depend on the individual circumstances. The point being made here is a fairly simple one – that the penalties being applied appear to be inconsistent with the seriousness of the offences.

I chose not to take any part in the mass theft that took place in various places throughout the UK last week.

I would have preferred that other people had not done so either.

I would prefer that such scenes do not happen again.

I am pleased that the courts are giving ‘tough sentences’ to those involved and those who attempted to incite further incidents.

Yes, some of these people are being made an example of and I support the courts in their actions
-I’m not quite sure how some people can be objecting to it.
Somebody who knowingly takes part in and contributes to activities that have such a negative effect on so many people and so many organisations deserves to be punished harshly and publicly.

I agree that some sort of rehabilitation and engagement with criminals and potential criminals is important, but firstly there needs to be some sort of deterrent to mass theft and disorder.

If more people decide not to take part in any mass theft and disorder in future because they are aware of the likely punishments, then I approve.

Alternatively, the courts can let everyone ‘off’ and mass theft could become a regular event in UK city centres. It could be televised and hosted by Dale Winton.

Somebody who knowingly takes part in and contributes to activities that have such a negative effect on so many people and so many organisations deserves to be punished harshly and publicly.

The trouble is, I’m not sure that an opportunistic bit of theft fits that description. You might as well argue that a low-level speeding offence contributes to the death and serious injury we have on our roads.

I think that individual crimes should be judged on their own individual circumstances..

Somebody who knowingly takes part in and contributes to activities that have such a negative effect on so many people and so many organisations deserves to be punished harshly and publicly.

Woohoo! They’re brinking back the stocks! I think the ducking stool would be a good choice for the News International investigation too.

nice article

some things never change

In a 1956 front page editorial, headlined “Rock ‘n Roll Babies” the Daily Mail declared:

It is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows rag-time, blues, dixie, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro’s revenge.

ransos – Member
The trouble is, I’m not sure that an opportunistic bit of theft fits that description. You might as well argue that a low-level speeding offence contributes to the death and serious injury we have on our roads.

Seizing the opportunity to burgle shops in the perceived safety of a mob is slightly different to deciding to travel at 80mph on the M6 at 6am on a sunny Sunday morning.

I think that individual crimes should be judged on their own individual circumstances..

I agree. The circumstances in these cases were extraordinary.

I shall spell it out for you:

Little Johnny sees that if lots of people decide to rob the High St simultaneously then they might get away with it. Ordinarily Little Johnny might not smash in the windows of JD Sports and help himself, but he decides to join the mob.

Little Chantel then sees that her friend, Little Johnny, has posted on Facebook that everyone should join the mob stealing from the High St and goes along for a look to see what ‘free stuff’ she can find etc. etc.

don simon – Member

Woohoo! They’re brinking back the stocks! I think the ducking stool would be a good choice for the News International investigation too.

I wasn’t aware that public punishment was restricted to medieval coporal punishment and the interrogation methods of witch-finders, but there you go.

this isnt about justice
its about politicians subverting the judicary, which is supposed to be independent.
all done to save face after
a) mindlessly cutting a swathe of services during a recession with no idea of the impact this would have
b) spending 3 days sipping chianti in tuscany while your country burnned
c) and generaly being utterly clueless on how to really fix the problems exposed

Seizing the opportunity to burgle shops in the perceived safety of a mob is slightly different to deciding to travel at 80mph on the M6 at 6am on a sunny Sunday morning.

Stealing some water from a shop already broken into is a very low-level offence in the context of the riots overall. 80mph on a quiet motorway is a very low-level offence in the context of motoring offences overall.

I agree. The circumstances in these cases were extraordinary.

Individual circumstances were not extraordinary. Judge each case on its own merits.

kimbers – Member

this isnt about justice

No, this is about fairly urgent crime prevention in the short-term.

Anybody who was not involved and isn’t considering looting the High St need not worry themselves about it.

This is not about infringements on civil liberties or the UK becoming a Police State.

I like living in the UK, but I’d prefer it if people did not trash it. If people do trash it, then punish them. Harshly.

relevant grauniad article

No, this is about fairly urgent crime prevention in the short-term.

really? the riots/looting stopped several days before any sentences were handed down, its just politicking now

I like living in the UK, but I’d prefer it if people did not trash it. If people do trash it, then punish them. Harshly.

I would like people to be caught and punished in a way that is commensurate with the crimes that they have committed. That is not what’s happening right now.

Individual circumstances were not extraordinary. Judge each case on its own merits.

The point is that the offences occurred because many people decided to join-in with the mob. The crimes were not isolated incidents, there was a context.

Simple f’rinstance

Bloke 1 – burns down a garage that belongs to a business rival

Bloke 2 – EDL member burns down a Mosque on 10th anniversary of 9/11

Should they be sentenced the same? commensurate with the sentencing guidelines for Arson – or is it reasonable for the latter be sentenced in a punitive and exemplary manner which recognises the wider context of the crime and the potential knock on effects?

kimbers – Member

No, this is about fairly urgent crime prevention in the short-term.

really? the riots/looting stopped several days before any sentences were handed down, its just politicking now

Oh dear….

I suspect that most people in the UK would prefer not to see people trashing the place again any time soon.

Obviously, some other people are less concerned.

I wasn’t aware that public punishment was restricted to medieval coporal punishment and the interrogation methods of witch-finders, but there you go.

[quote]
I often get bored when I see the same sh1t going round and round and round, and then I just start playing, because it doesn’t matter how serious you want to sound, you’re not going to add anything new or inspirational.

really? the riots/looting stopped several days before any sentences were handed down, its just politicking now

I thought they stopped because it was cold and raining.

Oh dear….

I suspect that most people in the UK would prefer not to see people trashing the place again any time soon.

Obviously, some other people are less concerned.

yeah thats exactly what i want to see?!!?
it doesnt take ‘bonkers’ sentencing to make people stop stealing stuff, just the police actually arresting them was enough

If more people decide *not* to take part in mass theft and disorder in future because they are aware of the likely punishments, then I approve.

Yes but 8, 16, 32 years, will also have the same effect, it doesn’t make it justified though. You can’t justify extreme sentences simply on the grounds that they achieve the desired result. And 4 years for posting something silly on the internet, and 6 months for the opportunistic theft of some cheap bottled water, are extreme sentences. Well unless you live in a country such as Iran, in which case they wouldn’t represent extreme sentences. But then if it happened in Iran we would be up in arms about it.

And as you quite rightly point out, we are talking about “theft” here – theft from shops. Which however unacceptable and undesirable it might be, is very far from being the most heinous crime. It is certainly not in the same league as starting illegal wars based on lying to parliament and the British people, and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Quite apart from the patent “injustice” of this knee-jerk nonsense, and the totally unnecessary cost to the taxpayer, it can only be counter-productive. It will leave many with less respect for the law and the justice system – not more.

It will leave many, specially young people, feeling angry and bitter that they have been unjustifiably harshly targeted, and made examples of, because they young and not very wealthy. Whilst others who through their own greed and selfishness have screwed the country, get away with it because of their power and wealth.

What sort of society dishes out 4 years for posting something silly on the internet, and 6 months for the opportunistic theft of some cheap bottled water, but lets crooked media moguls, war criminals, greedy destructive bankers, and dodgy coppers/MPs, off the hook ?

A society plagued with alienation, bitterness, and divisions – that’s what sort of society. And many young people, with no previous, have in the last few days discovered the consequences of not resisting arrest, owning up, admitting their guilt, and putting their faith in the justice system. Expect more trouble in the future, not less. You reap what you sow was never truer.

It will leave many, specially young people, feeling angry and bitter that they have been unjustifiably harshly targeted, and made examples of, because they young and not very wealthy

….Or maybe, just maybe, because they were involved in theft and major public disorder or attempting to incite it?

My heart doesn’t bleed at all and I don’t see the ‘injustice’.

I’m sorry but it wasn’t just a bit of harmless theft from shops. Panicking, owning up and hoping for leniency isn’t good enough. If handing out cautions to people who confess is the only punishment, where is the disincentive for others in the future?

I don’t care if the perpetrators don’t respect the law. They won’t anyway. I want them to be afraid of the law (well, the punishment) when they are deciding whether or not to form large mobs and destroy the local town. These people were not stealing bread to feed their families, they were taking ‘consumer goods’ and just looting shops for the sake of it. Taking a crate of glorified tap water is just nonsensical, but it is still burglary and, in fact, totally unnecessary. It deserves punshment.

I’m all for engaging with people who have problems, I’m not some middle-class chap in an ivory tower who reads the Daily Mail and has never met ‘ordinary people’.

I’m also in favour of trying to enthuse people to get involved in (positive)things and improve their situation if possible.

Incidentally, I am as against our country starting illegal wars in my name as much as anyone else.

A society plagued with alienation, bitterness, and divisions – that’s what sort of society. And many young people, with no previous, have in the last few days discovered the consequences of not resisting arrest, owning up, admitting their guilt, and putting their faith in the justice system. Expect more trouble in the future, not less. You reap what you sow was never truer.

Alternatively, a load of people who had never realised before that a mob can get a load of free ‘luxury items’ have now found out that if you get caught taking part in such activities, you’ll get gaol time.

Simple folk need simple messages:
If you don’t want to end up in gaol, don’t follow a stealing, violent mob into town.

It’s ugly, and I don’t feel all that comfortable locking all these folk up ( I’m a poncy N.London “prison doesnt work” liberal at heart) but we have to get the message across that getting involved in a mass riot isnt OK. It was properly scary down here last week, people are not happy, we just can’t risk it happening again because a bunch of kids think there arent consequences.

5 people died.

Ok its a debate But just look at what this scum has done to our country not alone world wide
damage done to our tourism. Then not forgetting though’s whom have lost if not everything.
what about them !

Personally i would give them more including putting them in with the worst offenders
and see how man they are.

The best deterant is people being happy with their lot in life; feeling that they are a part of society rather than excluded from it and repressed by it.

Sentencing seen as unjustly harsh by the majority (if this forum is anything to go by) and particularly by those communities concerned will pour oil on the fire.

I agree.

I don’t subscribe to the flashy goods = happiness mantra myself

Unfortunately, outside of educated people discussing it, the people inclined to commit crimes such as this need a simple message, which they are now receiving.

I’d much prefer it if these folk were happy to live in a pleasant way and take part in community and sporting activities, but, as it stands, they need some urgent disincentive from ransacking the city centre next week.

Aristotle – Member

Unfortunately, outside of educated people discussing it, the people inclined to commit crimes such as this need a simple message, which they are now receiving.

We already have a huge prison population, the idea that britain’s “soft on crime” is just a myth- per capita, only Spain imprisons more in western europe. We imprison 50% more people than Austria, France, Belgium, Germany to name just a few.

So do you look at that and say “Hmm, imprisoning 50% more of the population than our peers doesn’t seem to have worked so far- we need to imprison MORE!”? We’ve tried prison as a deterrant, and it’s turned out to be crap.

“Hmm, imprisoning 50% more of the population than our peers doesn’t seem to have worked so far

That’s only if you are coming from a deterrent POV

It certainly works as a punishment and it certainly works by keeping them away from committing more crime

I’m perfectly happy to see villains locked away to keep the public safer for a period, regardless of any deterrent the incarceration may effect