Sanny - MemberAs for zero tolerance, it's been proven to work best in high populous areas.
Well no, I don't think it has, that's what I'm saying. I've never seen a credible claim to say the "harsh punishment" approach that came out of the zero tolerance idea works. You claimed NY as a success but actually it's a perfect example of the opposite, and the best proof I know of that it [i]doesn't [/i]work. (Also a good proof that politicians and lawmakers and elements of the press are very good at claiming success where there was none, and playing PR games that affect people's lives without caring whether it actually [i]works[/i])
Fixing broken windows is a great idea and there's a fair amount of evidence that it works (as well as seeming like common sense), but interpreting as "Let's punish people as hard as we can for breaking windows" isn't the same thing. Cleaning streets is more cost effective than draconian punishments for minor crimes and has the same result. It's less satisfying but it's more effective at the job of reducing crime.
There's a cause and effect here. Graffiti encourages people to tag- Take away the graffiti, you get less tagging. Punish tagging but don't take away the tags, and you get the same amount of graffiti, you just end up having punished more people for it. Which appeals to some people obviously but it's not productive.
Sanny - MemberSo 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.
Well, mainly from what little I know of it, I'd say it's not a good example. Lots of people on here have speeding convictions, would punishing them harder for that make them less likely to try and run a cyclist down? It's not a comparable offence. if he'd tried to run a cyclist down before, and got a light sentence, then yep I'd say you've got a cause and effect. The guy did something that's obviously mental, so applying rational thought to it isn't that likely to work out unfortunately.
commercial burglary of insecure premises would not normally attract a sentence of this length for a person of good character in employment or education and pleading guilty.
While the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.
I bet that for commercial reasons very few if any "Rioters" will face riot charges but instead will be charged with violent disorder.
crankboy - MemberWhile the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.
Interesting point. SO it could be argued he's been charged with and plead for one offence, but been sentenced as if he'd been charged with and plead for another?
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.
He wasn't convicted for rioting, and I don't see why he should be made responsible for the actions of others. He was an opportunist thief, acting on his own. Wrong, absolutely, but not quite the crime of the centrury.
While the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.
The reason (according to some legal types on 5 Live this morning, if I understood it right) is that[b] there is no specific crime of "rioting"[/b] but that burglary is one of the charges that can be made against rioters/looters.
So questions about why he wasn't charged with "rioting" are moot.
Northwind as in so much of life the answer is "sort of" if he was a rioter or guilty of violent disorder then 6 months would be too short . The issue is how far is it fair to push the sentence for burglary up tariff to reflect the fact that it happened during a riot.
If the sentence was explained in terms of " you took advantage of a riot as cover for your looting " then personally while a bit harsh i think it is an arguably OK sentence keep in mind that this was guilty plea at first opportunity so the judges starting point was this offence?offender merits 9 months in prison . But if the sentence was passed on the basis "you were a rioter but you have only been charged with theft so because you were a rioter I'll give the maximum sentence i can," then it is a bit off in my opinion.
So questions about why he wasn't charged with "rioting" are moot.
I doubt it, as the issue was raised by crankboy. Crankboy has my utmost respect on these sort of threads - he knows what he's talking about and he invariably makes the most constructive contribution on such matters.
"The reason (according to some legal types on 5 Live this morning, if I understood it right) is that there is no specific crime of "rioting" but that burglary is one of the charges that can be made against rioters/looters."
Damm has someone repealed section 1 of the public order act while i was not looking?
No, it's still on the statute books. As you know, though, it's very rarely if ever used. The reason is that if it's a riot businesses are not covered by insurance; if it's a violent disorder they are.
nope it's still there :
IF 12 or more people
use or threaten unlawful violence (not necessarily at same time)
for a common purpose
so as to scare folk
then they are bad boys guilty of riot and can go to prison for 10 years.
And as far as i know anoymouse is right that's why when riots come to court they are always violent disorders we don't want to upset businessmen now do we
OK - I got it slightly wrong - I think it was because he wasn't with 11 mates then so couldn't technical be said to be rioting, but that the magistrate wanted to take the rioting into account.
Is that right crankboy?
Maybe a word of explanation instead of a condescending quip next time? (gosh, why is it that the police don't get the respect they think they are due?)
The explanation was on Victoria Derbyshire programme this morning anyway. Went to find it on iPlayer, but it's not working yet.
Ooh, Crankboy, I think rightplacerighttime thinks you're a rozzer. Little does he know!
can we not let them al go, it's friday and the telly has got a bit boring since tuesday. also it would be good to see how long stw can carry on these expert opinions. after all a bit of rioting, building burn and shop robbing will help the economy. there is no shortage of builders for new shops.
rightplacerighttime
really sorry if i was condescending , i was trying to be light hearted.
To get a riot conviction the 12 or more don't have to be the same gang and don't all have to use violence simultaneously , the next offence down violent disorder only needs 3 or more . So i think the burglary charge reflects the fact the riot had moved on and this bloke can only be said to have taken the opportunity to help himself in the aftermath.
The value judgement is how far and why did the magistrate or district judge take the background of the riot into account?
anonymous: The reason is that if it's a riot businesses are not covered by insurance; if it's a violent disorder they are.
Riot, Civil Commotion, locked out workers, all the same thing as far as insurance is concerned. If it's mentioned at all. Might be All risks.
Difference with Riot is insurers can reclaim payments for damage due to riot from the police (/taxpayer). The event needs to be declaread a Riot under the Act by the police and the Insurer (or the uninsured home/businessowner) needs to notify the authorities of the loss/claim within 14 days of the incident.
More if you're interested, from the exciting Insurance Day magazine:
UK extends riot damage claims deadline to 42 daysTHE UK government has extended the deadline for riot claims to be submitted to police authorities to 42 days in the clearest sign yet that the authorities expect to pick up a substantial part of the bill from the days of unrest in the country.
Normally such claims must be submitted within 14 days of the damage occurring.
In a statement to the House of Commons today he said:?“I can confirm that any individual, homeowner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting, can seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act, even if uninsured.
“The government will ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims. And whereas normally claims must be received within 14 days, we will extend the period to 42 days.”
Business interruption claims, which are expected to make up a significant part of the final claims bill for insurers, are not expected to come under the remit of the RDA.
Cameron told MPs that he had received assurances from insurers that “claims will continue to be dealt with as quickly and constructively as possible” and noted the Association of British Insurers’ latest estimate of the insured bill at more than £200m.
Edit: note that Business Interruption won't go back to the govt. and will be left with the insurers, or the uninsured. (BI = Payment for margin you would have made if an insured incident reduces sales. Allows you to pay suppliers, staff, interest on bank loans, rates etc. Having your building, stock and machinery replaced isn't much good if your business has gone under through lack of cash in the meantime)
really sorry if i was condescending , i was trying to be light hearted.
Yes, sorry. I was just cross that I had got my facts wrong when I knew that the essence of what I was saying was right i.e. that the court didn't actually have the option to try him for rioting, even though his crime was directly related to the riot.
The crime was not directly related to the riot it occurred during a riot. It was opportunistic in nature and none of the reports suggest he was involved in the riot just the theft.
rightplacerighttime - Memberthat the court didn't actually have the option to try him for rioting, even though his crime was directly related to the riot.
Yup. Because he wasn't rioting. They couldn't try him for murder either because he didn't kill anyone. Terrible.
Northwind are you sure of the cases you quoted? shereece ashlay has been bailed til august 17th [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696932/London-riots-ballerina-17-year-old-caught-on-CCTV.html ]apparently[/url].
I was going to say sentance seems harsh but the inconsistency is baffling/annoying, so the content your post wound me right up. Anyway I hope the prelly bad boys and girls who actually broke into shops and stole the good stuff get considerably more than the opportunistic gits who picked up a vit of tat in the aftermath.
what id like to know is what kind of guarantees there will be that this sort of thing doesnt happen agin... there aren't any full stop !
years ago there used to be 'Guardian Angels' on patrol on the streets of Manchester and also on the trains.... people 'felt safe'.... we need those kind of groups around agin 😉
D0NK - MemberNorthwind are you sure of the cases you quoted? shereece ashlay has been bailed til august 17th apparently.
The link there talks about another younger girl getting remanded til the 17th, and Ashley being given 3 months- it's 2 different people.
Doh sorry northwind. In that case Grrr bloody stupid inconsistent sentancing!
Unless someone can points out valid reasons why the cases NW mentioned got less jailtime, cause on the face of it it all sounds bobbins to me.
Interesting stuff come out today
Sentencing comments by a senior judge, explaining fully his reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines:
Interesting stuff
Looked totally boring to me.
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...
[i]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]
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.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14559294 ]
[/url]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]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.[b] You blame your position on the end of your relationship. Many endure that happening without resorting to crime[/b].
[/i]
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.
[b]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[/b].
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 [b]not[/b] 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 [b]publicly[/b].
Woohoo! They're brinking back the stocks! I think the ducking stool would be a good choice for the News International investigation too.
[url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-looting-hits-britain-0 ]nice article[/url]
some things never change
[i]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.[/i]
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 [b]perceived safety[/b] 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 - MemberWoohoo! 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.
