I have a feeling that the vast majority of the people picked up by the police over the last few days will he guys like this. The proper nasty folk will have had the smarts to stay out of reach of the fuzz, the guys in the cells will be all dumb fuds like this guy.
My GF used to work with kids from what currently seems to be called the underclass, and she wasn't at all suprised that the first people passing through the courts weren't from that demographic- they haven't got the same street smarts so are more likely to find themselves in the wrong place when the police show up, and then they're the low-hanging fruit.
I'm not sure we've had this level of sentencing before to prove it. Secondly are you so sure of the objective that you can say it didn't work in the past and won't work in the future?
We have had a harsher level of sentencing in the past when it comes to rioting, stealing etc. Where would Australia's population be without having harsher sentencing? 😉
By all means keep 16000 police on the streets of London, build more prisons, implement harsher sentencing. But don't for a minute believe they are the complete solution to the problem and will prevent this from happening again.
Also it's un-affordable.
the MPs had to pay back 1.2million in expenses fraudulently claimed
an impressive bit of benefit fraud considering only 4? got sent down- what were their sentences ?
do people really think when he saw Lidl he thought "I might get some free water." He thought "free stuff with no risk of geting cought. I will get whatever I can"
The fact that water was the only thing left should have nothing to do with the sentence handed down to him. You really think if there was a PS3 sitting next to the water he would have still gone for the water.
These Londoners have no style.
In the last couple of days we've had Manchester looters sent down for taking violins and Liam Gallagher's dress.
yes sentence him for what he may have done. I want more thought crime punishments and I want them NOW
Can I just take the opportunity to remind you that this time it was only water - next time it could be a Childs face!
Junky/TJ - Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?
The crime was burglary
If somebody broke into a house, and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £50 do you think that the sentence should be any different from that if they broke into someone house and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £300?
If a mugger stole your wallet, and it had £3.50 in it, should he be sentenced any differently from a mugger who stole your wallet when it happened to contain £180?
This is a serious question, and deserves an answer...
Why should the CRIMINAL who took a case of water be treated any differently to the one that stepped through GB Cycles window and took a bike.
Might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb.
If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk.
So, a man with no previous convictions, who pleaded guilty, gets 6 months for stealing £3.50 worth of goods. If that's what we as a society judge is appropriate, then fine, but let's see it applied consistently. I find it very hard to believe that a custodial sentence of this length for this crime would be handed out in any other circumstances.
Personally, I think that we need much more imagination in sentencing - let's come up with properly restorative ideas rather than locking people up at enormous expense, with no discernable benefit.
If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk.
Conversely if we choose to ignore serious crimes like burglary because there wasn't much money involved then we are sending a message that it is okay to nick small stuff and nothing will happen if you get caught.
When I saw the damage to the town centre I was devastated, it was far worse than I had expected, and I was genuinely seriously upset, in fact I was surprised just how upset
Sounds like there might have been a riot, with some looting on the periphery, not the reverse position as portrayed by the media. The German news has certainly focused more on rioting and less on the looting than the UK media has.
you are correct graham but if this is worth 6 mths a lot of people are getting 10 years., which will appeal to some.
I would put this crime quite low down the severity scales of the riot though.
Again the willies are waved.
As ransos just mentioned, more thought into the sentence could be hugely beneficial. The petty criminal can be used for community service tasks or wherever possible as part of the repair to what they have done.
The riots will need a huge clear up operation, use those involved in it to fix the mess. It's not as logistically easy to do this, but I bet it would be a lot cheaper and far more useful to the their rehabilitation to do so.
The striking thing is that the sentence seems disproportionate to the general event. Discussing ethics without flexibility is a very, very hard thing to do. How many of you stick completely to the rules you choose to live by?
Junky/TJ - Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?The crime was burglary
If somebody broke into a house, and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £50 do you think that the sentence should be any different from that if they broke into someone house and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £300?
If a mugger stole your wallet, and it had £3.50 in it, should he be sentenced any differently from a mugger who stole your wallet when it happened to contain £180?
This is a serious question, and deserves an answer...
EXACTLY.
Can we not just water board them all, would save the prison money.
Junky/TJ - Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?
My view is that the impact upon the victim should be a significant factor in determining the severity of the crime. Which is why I would always regard breaking into an old lady's house more seriously than stealing from a supermarket.
Conversely if we choose to ignore serious crimes like burglary because there wasn't much money involved then we are sending a message that it is okay to nick small stuff and nothing will happen if you get caught.
But is anyone arguing that? I think all some are saying is that a 6-month custodial sentence is harsh, expensive to the taxpayer, and lacks imagination.
I think I answered that above but to continue. The value of the goods taken should neither be the deciding factor nor should they be completely ignored so it depends - clear eh 😉
Let me use some examples to clarify my view.
I suspect most folk think that breaking into a house and stealing the tv is bad but breaking in and emptying the entire contents of the house is worse. We would sentence the later greater than the former rather than just claim the offence was the same. I would argue that taking some water is more like the former than the later- the examples cited presumably involve taking everything the person had so I am not sure they are comparable directly with this case tbh. In the examples cited the money taken would not be an issue [ they took all they had I assume] but I cannot see how it directly relates to this scenario..so as I said it may or it may not be a factor.
At an extreme level would you send someone down for the same length if they both robbed an electrical store ? Lets say one took a SCART lead and the other emptied the store of all the white goods? Lets assume they were not working together..can you see no difference in crime here?
Overall my view is that this offence is trivial within the context of the riots and the crime also trivial in terms of what has been stolen overall. I dont see how or why we should ignore this when sentencing this individual. If this is the bench mark then here will be a lot of 10 year stretches coming.
Overall my view is that this offence is trivial within the context of the riots and the crime also trivial in terms of what has been stolen overall. I dont see how or why we should ignore this when sentencing this individual. If this is the bench mark then here will be a lot of 10 year stretches coming.
I know what you're saying and that's what I joked about in my OP. But this is just for show.
The police can do their bit on the street (albeit with their hands tied behind their backs) but once they've handed them over to the interview rooms the system goes mental. This whole episode showcases how embarrasses this all is.
[b]Intent[/b] is an important consideration.
Entering a closed shop with the intent to steal things and then taking what you find is a crime. Just because the only things left in the shop happen to be low value does not change the situation.
The water was incidental. Entering the shop with the intent to steal what was there was not.
Had the chap entered the Armani shop and stolen a suit the intent would have been the same.
You should not be able to just go and help yourself to things that you want.
In recent days, 1000s and 1000s of people have gone out and helped themselves to other people's property (by violent means). This is not a good time for the courts to sit the perpetrators on bean bags and discuss how bad they felt because they couldn't afford a bigger TV than the one they already had.
Starving people were not stealing food to feed their families. People were stealing items of value/perceived status and then other people came along and stole what was left.
Junky - I hear what you're saying regards the difference between stealing a scart lead, or the entire contents of the store.
However, the examples I gave were of a single item.
Lets say that instead of a case containing 6 litres of water, value £3.50, it was a case containing 6 bottles of single malt whisky, value approx £200.
Should the sentence be any different?
Personally I think they should add up the cost of all the damage to buildings and stock and increased premiums for the shop owners then divide that amount by the people convicted of looting and rioting. They can then pay their share back even if it takes them the rest of their lives. Granted many will never be able to pay it back but it will be a weight around their neck. Why as a shop owner should I have to claim on my insurance and face the increased premiums for years to come because of this scum. Why are they not forced to pay back what they have stolen, damaged. Sounds like a guy that nicks £1000 TV will get the same sentence as someone that nicks a £3.50 case of water. Yes it is all the same crime but none of the sentencing helps the shop owner to rebuild his business.
On a slightly lighter note might be worth keeping an eye out on the police auctions in London, sounds like they will be full of computers and TV's 😉
Can we not just water board them all, would save the prison money.
Waterboarding someone for stealing bottled water - inverse homeopathic justice!
When someone cuts and pastes your reply I will admit i am reading 😉
If it was different crime then a different sentence may be appropriate.
It just depends - the value cannot be ignored in the sentence in this case here though it may not be a factor in all cases. If someone steals a car for example the value of the car should not be a factor as the impact is the same.
I dont think you can get £300 worth of whiskey out of Lidl without filling a car boot.
6 months for a £3.50 bottle of water.
I wish those sentancing guidelines were used when the mps stole all that money from us to buy antiques, moat improvements, 2nd home allowances, toilet brushes, duck houses and the rental of porno films.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/11/looters-beak-magistrates-young-offenders ]Grauniad linky[/url]
Relevant article from a JP.
Ernie, I've lived in the (your) area all my life, as a kid I worked at GB Cycles, long before they opened Bike Plus. I know the people directly effected by this.Why should the CRIMINAL who took a case of water be treated any differently to the one that stepped through GB Cycles window and took a bike.
He was convicted of burglary and been sentenced for it. It doesn't matter what was taken, he was sentenced for the crime(s) committed (Burglary and rioting) NOT what was stolen.
Yes I know the people directly effected by this too - we're on first name terms, chat about this and that, they give me invaluable advice, have often dropped what they are doing to deal with a mechanical problem I might have had, let me in their workshop to chat as they fix the problem, etc, etc. In fact I will probably pop down later today for some brake pads for my road bike. But this doesn't mean that I therefore automatically believe a sledgehammer should be used to crack a nut.
As far as the case of the guy who nicked some water is concerned, I am fairly ambivalent. On the face of it, in my opinion, the sentence is quite disproportionate to the crime, especially as it appears he isn't a bad lad with a string of previous convictions, and he's shown remorse, admitted his crime, etc.
If however the argument is that the sentence was passed to show a determination by the authorities to treat all activities in connection to looting as extremely serious and stop re-occurrences in the future, then I could possibly warm to that. But I think the suggestion that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime still stands though.
And I would like to see that same level of determination in dealing with the [i]whole[/i] range of highly complex issues which were behind the looting - greed, lack of opportunities, consumerism, low wages, lack of respect and empathy, policing, false dreams, idleness, etc, etc. I think however that is sadly less than unlikely, and that only the simplistic knee-jerk reactions will triumph. Guaranteeing more social and public order issues in the future no doubt.
6 months for a £3.50 bottle of water.
Nope - 6 months for Burglary.
Anyone know if/how the value of what he nicked is considered in sentencing?
Simple - if it's a 300 quid car then it's mandatory jail time, if it's a three-grand bike then "it's only a bike, don't do it again"...
The article Ransos linked to says this:
[i]Magistrates will not need the exhortation of politicians to get tough with the looters. In many cases, JPs will look at their guidelines and decide that the aggravating feature – the break down in public order – means their powers of sentence are insufficient. The maximum jail term they can hand out for a single offence is six months, reduced by up to a third if the offender pleads guilty. Only half a prison sentence is actually served behind bars: the rest under licence back in the community. Those caught red-handed with flat-screen TVs or designer trainers can expect to find themselves up before a judge in the crown court, with a harsher sentence as a result.[/i]
I guess he was lucky it was only a few bottles of water.
I wish those sentancing guidelines were used when the mps stole all that money from us...
And I wish people would stop dragging up that bollox.
You may not have liked the MPs expenses, but the vast majority were perfectly legal and following the guidance of their own expenses department.
A select few were illegal and they were charged with false accounting and prosecuted (i.e. [url=http://]David Chaytor (former Labour MP) got 18 months[/url]).
TandemJeremy - Member
pjt201Are you sure? Magistrates have the power to impose sentences of up to six months is my understanding
They can impose them, but they do not decide on them, they will have been advised by the probationary service.
What are you on about ? They impose them , dont decide them but ONLY receive advice WHICH IS IT?
and advice from the probation service? Are you sure?
There are sentencing guidlines [ a sthere are for crown court] but the magistrates can sentence within these
Junkyard - Might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb.
Exactly- America's "3 strikes and you're out" proved this- if someone thinks they face a high sentence, they commit a crime that makes the sentence seem worthwhile. Prison's an awful deterrant, everyone knows this, but it turned out it can be an [i]excellent[/i] motivator.
And then you've got the people handing themselves in, being refused bail and facing high sentences- what's the message there? [i]Don't hand yourself in.[/i] As someone said up the page, "won't do that again"
For the ongoing arrests, they're relying on the community turning people in- the more people that are saying "**** me, that's excessive", the less that'll happen. [i]I[/i] wouldn't turn in a petty thief if I thought they'd get 6 months.
rightplacerighttime - Or, maybe... the magistrates who are actually in court, actually dealing with the people first hand, actually seeing the evidence being put forward, are better at sentencing than a bunch of pundits on a MTB forum?
That's an easy copout but it never seems to carry much weight when someone gets a light sentence. And in this case, the judge explained the reasoning, and set out a series of reasons to give a low sentence. And there are other cases getting lower sentences- what are the mitigating circumstances that we don't know about, that would make trying to gouge a policeman's eyes out a less severe offence than an opportunistic theft without violence or criminal damage with no prior?
You can say "We don't know the full story"- but we know enough, sometimes. What do you think we're missing that explains that? The information we have proves, if nothing else, enormous unfairness and inconsistency.
Can't help but wonder if the water-thief had been offered the option of 6 months or a minor kicking by the cops (Manchester-style), which he would have chosen?
And would TJ [b]STILL[/b] have been wringing his hands in despair?
"If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk."
The 'water thief' was part of the crowd rioting, If him, and others like him, who, maybe, did not take part in the violent parts of the riot, they were certainly causing more problems for the Police.
Say there are 100 people there, you can bet only 6 to 10 of them of violent loonies.
But, how do the Police know who the loonies are amongst a crowd of 100?
So, idiots like him directly affect the outcome, in that the Police cannot control a large crowd, so indirectly he WAS part of the greater problem.
Junkyard - MemberIf it was different crime then a different sentence may be appropriate.
It just depends - the value cannot be ignored in the sentence in this case here though it may not be a factor in all cases. If someone steals a car for example the value of the car should not be a factor as the impact is the same.
I dont think you can get £300 worth of whiskey out of Lidl without filling a car boot.
Well put.
Entering a shop and passing the opportunity to steal high value items, and taking only one low value item, is different from entering a shop and looking for the most valuable items to take, or walking out with all you can carry, or targetting a shop where higher value items are available. He had the opportunity to take more, but chose not to, which proves his motive and his low criminal intent.
Someone said "What if he robbed a jewellers and only took a low value item of jewellery"- tbh you can be pretty sure from his behaviour he [i]wouldn't[/i] have robbed a jewellers.
Last year, I was the victim of a deliberate hit and run. The driver drove into the back of me when I was stationnary at traffic lights in one of the busiest thoroughfares in my city. It had been preceeded by hard revving of his engine and repeated honking of his horn. He was aggrieved that I had signalled and pulled in in front of him when he was stopped in traffic and had left more than the length of a car in front of him. Fortunately, two witness came forward and the Fiscal took the case to court. He was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to 8 penalty points, a nine month ban and instructed to sell his car to pay a £750 fine. It transpired that he had two previous speeding convictions and had received a 300 hour community service order for forgery for having passed off several hundred pounds of fake notes previously.
From my perspective, I have to ask whether the points and the previous community service order in the High Court had any effect on his outlook on life and on his behaviour? When he hit me, he could see for himself the damage he had done to my bike, the frame bent out of alignment, bent hanger and mech and the back wheel so badly buckled that it took the paint off the chainstay. He knew he had done wrong yet refused to give his insurance details and drove off. He made a conscious decision to use his vehicle as a weapon. To be blunt, sometimes the courts have to intervene and send out a strong message that there are serious consequences for your actions. We are all responsible for our actions. If we chose the wrong path, if there is no or little consequence for our misdeeds, what is to stop us continuing to do wrong? In his case, he now has no car and will struggle to get insurance in the future. He made a conscious decision which has had a significant consequence for him. I hope that he now reflects on his actions and modifys his behaviour going forward.
In terms of harsh sentencing and adopting a zero tolerance approach, Mayor Giulliani adopted this in New York several years ago and it had a dramatic impact on not just minor crime but also the level of more serious crime.
When it comes to the crunch, strong sentences have to be one of the ways forward. Not only will they force the perpetrator to think twice in future but may have a similar impact on other potential offenders. In extremis, I wonder how quick folk would be to loot and riot were the form of Sharia law practiced in Saudi to be enacted here?
The 'water thief' was part of the crowd rioting, If him, and others like him, who, maybe, did not take part in the violent parts of the riot, they were certainly causing more problems for the Police.
Say there are 100 people there, you can bet only 6 to 10 of them of violent loonies.
But, how do the Police know who the loonies are amongst a crowd of 100?
So, idiots like him directly affect the outcome, in that the Police cannot control a large crowd, so indirectly he WAS part of the greater problem.
Its a good point - we constantly hear tales of "oh, he was only a poor innocent bystander"
In a riot, there is no such thing, if you're there, you're part of the problem.
I genuinely believe a reintroduction of the Riot act principle of disperse or face the consequences, or colloquially "right **** off back home, anyone still here in an hour gets what's coming to them" is called for.
Northwind
Try carrying 6 large bottles of water and see how much more you can manage? As a Lidl shopper, I van confirm that six bottles of their fizzy water is a bit of a handful! 😀
Thankfully the law doesn't take account of what an individual might have done but what they did do.
Do a search for Kelling and Wilsons paper from 1983 which postulated their broken windows theory in relation to criminal behaviour. It makes for interesting reading and some argue forms the theoretical basis of a zero tolerance approach to crime.
Sanny- crime in NY was already falling before Zero Tolerance came in, and it continued to fall in line with other cities where zero tolerance wasn't used. NY had tried zero tolerance previously, and crime went up. It didn't work at all. (incidentally, the reason crime actually fell was almost certainly economic growth)
I've actually read Broken Windows, and what's interesting about it is that it wasn't peer reviewed, and it didn't provide any evidence for its assertions. But the New Jersy clean streets movement (which was a truer implementation of zero tolerance than NY's was) showed was that crime was completely unaffected- people felt safer on the streets but they weren't. The article makes assumptions but the reality doesn't support it, some would say disproves it.
Oh and if you stack them you can carry 3 cases no bother, it's only 36 kilos. One in each arm is more manageable if you think you might have to run from the popo though.
Northwind
So what would you propose the answer is then? In my own experience, the soft option of community sentencing and fines didn't stop me getting run into the back of. If he had received a custodial sentence previously, it may be that I would not have found myself in harms way.
As for zero tolerance, it's been proven to work best in high populous areas. London is a prime candidate for it. If you see your streets getting run down, strewn with litter, graffitti on the walls, at what point do you lose pride in the area you live and a sense of belonging? If no one else apparently cares then why should you? It's a small logical step which is evidenced by what happened in London and elsewhere. I would suspect Lidl man may have thought to himself that as everyone else was doing it, he'd probably not get caught and chose to act as he did. Hell bloody mend him. He can feel remorse and shame all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law and has been punished for it.
I hope that he now reflects on his actions and modifys his behaviour going forward.
We all hope his happens we just question whether 6 mths was needed to achieve this. He had no previous and as you note the person who hit you has still not been sent down for crimes...which do you think is the criminal who needs to be taught a lesson or requires rehabilitation if you prefer that route. the water thief or mad car driver?
Zero tolerance sounds great but the evaluation of it as success is somewhat mixed and controversial. There is no real proof it worked though it does appeal to many voters.
He can feel remorse and shame all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law and has been punished for it.
nor the fact the sentences was disproportionate and no one os aying they are innocent.
My view is that the impact upon the victim should be a significant factor in determining the severity of the crime. Which is why I would always regard breaking into an old lady's house more seriously than stealing from a supermarket.
But in this case his stealing water from a supermarket was part of a huge disturbance that will have made old ladies the length and breadth of the country more fearful of being out on the streets.
He was part of a riot, not a casual shoplifter.
I find it very hard to believe that a custodial sentence of this length for this crime would be handed out in any other circumstances
The magistrate was quite clear; the background of, and involvement in, the riots/looting was an aggravating feature of the crime and certainly a large part of his sentence.
Saying that it was, in effect, victimless is pointless because as others have pointed out, he didn't leave home to get some water and find Lidl was smashed apart, he just decided to join in and nick something. A split second to decide to do it but he's got to live with the results, same as that student who lobbed the extinguisher off the building, Charlie Gilmour and similar.
We've all had the opportunity to steal things with little/no chance of being caught, but most of us understand right and wrong.
