- At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader….
- b rMember
Property was involved, and arson.Posted 5 years agogwaelodMemberPosted 5 years ago
Put a lit rag on a furniture shop sofa: 11 years in jail. Change your Facebook status to “let’s start a riot”: four months in jail. Kill a cyclist with a truck, admit to speeding and dangerous driving: suspended sentence and a two year driving ban
Darrell WTF! There was certainly no threat behind and it wasn’t made to sound flippant but unfortunately that is sometimes the nature of the internet. I was trying to explain that you certainly can’t compare 2 offences, let alone different aged offenders (one adult, one juvenile), their pre cons (dont’ know much about either but I imagine their pre con history is pretty different) etc etc.
Sorry wasn’t meant to be offensive to anyone, explain what you mean?Posted 5 years ago
Oh I completely agree with you on that OMITN but the point is we can’t change that. you certainly don’t have to talk to me about the Justice system and how flawed it is!!! I guess I didn’t explain myself well enough, I was trying to say too long and complicated to explain it so just accept it and move on rather than being Daily Mailesque and getting wound up as we (as Joe public) can’t change it.Posted 5 years agoernie_lynchMember
…it wasn’t made to sound flippant but unfortunately that is sometimes the nature of the internet
Yep, it sounded like a rather flippant and patronising comment to me, specially as you have now added “I was trying to say too long and complicated to explain it so just accept it and move on”. It all smacks of “now run along and don’t worry your pretty little heads whilst the grownups deal with this very important issue”.
Which whilst it is obviously not the message that you want to convey, is rather ironic at a time when this stupid coalition government is determined push through a mad american style idea concerning elected police commissioners. Presumably we will all be expected to take a keen interest on matters relating to law and order and become such experts that we will be able to decide who has the best policies.
As a side note to the arson attack, although I know it’s not relevant to the sentencing I would be interested in knowing how it has affected the business in question. Before its destruction every time I went past Reeves furniture shop I would ponder how it managed to stay in business. It looked like a crappy old fashion shop with crappy old fashion furniture, and since I never seemed to see any customers going in or out, and it was almost walking distance from IKEA, it was a complete mystery to me how they ever managed to make a profit. Bearing mind the massive publicity it has received, the talk by the owners of how they have been overwhelmed by local support, the fact that they still had another shop opposite unaffected and operating, and there will be an insurance payout, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole incident will prove to have been a nice little earner for the owners. I was talking to a friend at the weekend who used to live less than a couple of hundred yards from the shop and she is of simular opinion. Although none of this takes away the seriousness of the crime of course – I’m just curious of the financial consequences of the arson attack.Posted 5 years agohoraMember
The pensioner was punched. The defendant could have argued that he didn’t intend to hit the pensioner and to a degree (the pensioner was protecting his property) the defendant over reacted in the heat of the moment.
It can be argued that setting fire to a building full of retail furniture is a deliberate act and the defendant knows there could be people within the building and put firefighters at risk- hence why arson is a big thing. Literally. It doesn’t wash that the person didn’t think through the risks/enormity of the action.Posted 5 years agoourmaninthenorthSubscriber
Oh I completely agree with you on that OMITN but the point is we can’t change that.
In the immediate context of these cases, no. But, in the wider context of the social value placed on life, property and transport, there does need to be a review and rebalance. Sure, that’s a longer process, but certainly a worthwhile one.Posted 5 years agoJunkyardMember
I would imagine every copper thinks that the sentencing handed out is inconsistent and unpredictable just like most other citizens think tbh.
He is not speaking as a copper any more than any one else on here speaks for their profession
Come on guys let not bash the plod please.
FFS Ernie always there ready to criticize!
its what he does …the real skill is in working out whether he means it or whether he is just getting his kicks [ you have to actually care though to do this]
I did not think you were saying anything other than it is an odd system that throws up anachronisms from time to time and there is little point thinking about why due to factors such as etc
I think everyone would like fairer [ ie consistent] sentencing but to do so would remove the freedom from judges to sentence according to the actual evidence….the issue is which do we [ as a society] prefer. Freer judges and more inconsistent sentencing or highly prescriptive sentencing guidelines meaning all offences of the same nature are treated the same. I think the current system [ bit of both] is the best though anomalies will always crop up.Posted 5 years agocrankboyMember
Sentencing is always a little more complicated than the daily mail or the internet vigillante would have you believe .
The facebook jokers pleaded guilty what ever any one else says about their acts they said they were trying to organise a riot . people die in riots people set fire to shops in riots, that is a serious crime .
The arsonist accepted he knowingly put lives at risk by his fire and caused a huge amount of dammage and in fact put lives in jeopordy both fire brigade and public . he was an adult and had previous convictions.
The killer pleaded guilty to manslaughter. It was accepted by everyone who had access to the facts (police cps judge) that he did not intend to kill or cause serious injury , he threw a single punch the victim fell from that banged his head and died . Anyone among us who has ever punched, pushed or owned someone with bommers runs the risk of this happening.
While the judge does not like the phrase it was a classic one punch manslaughter agravated by being part of a violent disorder and by an offence of burglary. The Killer was a youth (youths normaly receive shorter sentences than adults) he received a sentence significantly above what would normally be available for a youth. The sentence was also increased to reflect the violent disorder and burglary charges that would otherwise have been consecutive. That sentence also had also to take account that he was of good character and significantly that he pleaded guilty. The judge did indicate that but for the guilty plea it would have been 10 years.
In short the British press do British justice a disservice by never reporting fully or explaining.Posted 5 years agokonabunnyMember
You cannot compare crimes, sentencing, age of defendants, the situation in which the offence occurred, etc etc despite how much we all like to, there are too many other factors.
Of course you can compare them (literally and sensibly, too).
It doesn’t wash that the person didn’t think through the risks/enormity of the action.
Like – if I punch someone, they might fall over, hit their head and die?Posted 5 years agodon simonMember
Like – if I punch someone, they might fall over, hit their head and die?
That does seem a little bit silly because they might learn their lesson immediately and they might become totally reformed characters and they might even become valuable members of society.Posted 5 years ago
I am sentencing the accused on the strength of a modal verb!!konabunnyMember
I am sentencing the accused on the strength of a modal verb!!
If you go around punching people, they might die. If you go around setting fires in buildings, they might entirely burn down.
Hora’s equivocation between saying the arsonist can punished more heavily even if he didn’t think it through and the manslaughterman (?) can be punished more leniently because he overreacted doesn’t make sense. They’re both in the same position: the act was deliberate even if they didn’t entirely intend the consequences (the death/the total destruction of the building).Posted 5 years agoernie_lynchMember
Munqe-chick – Member
FFS Ernie always there ready to criticize! this forum has just become a slagging match. I did apologize and say it wasn’t meant to sound like that but hey ho bo**** to it, knew I should switch off from work when I got home. Byee.
You seem to have a very short fuse Munqe-chick – does it affect you in your work ? I said : “Which whilst it is obviously not the message that you want to convey”.
Yes that’s right, I thought your comment sounded rather flippant and patronising, and I don’t appear to be the only one. I’m glad to hear though, that you didn’t intend it to be. Sorry for having “thought incorrectly”. Do you always get in a strop and go off in a huff when people think incorrectly ? Get a grip and calm down a tad maybe ?
you have to actually care though to do this
I get the impression that M-C does care. Which is bizarre to say the least and I would have thought rather impractical. Personally I would have thought that the opinions of some bloke you don’t know on a bike forum holds little value for most people.Posted 5 years ago
no takers? okay then, what about this?
A general movement shifted criminality from a ‘mass criminality’ to a ‘marginal criminality’ partly the preserve of professionals… In fact, the shift …forms part of a whole complex mechanism, embracing the development of production, the increase of wealth, a higher juridical and moral value placed on property relations, stricter methods of surveillance, a tighter partitioning of the population, more efficient techniques of locating and obtaining information: the shift in illegal practices is correlative with an extension and a refinement of punitive practices
from discipline and punish (yes, really…)Posted 5 years agotheotherjonvSubscriber
one’s a crime against property and the other’s a crime against a person.
Arson’s not a crime against property in the same way that burglary is. It put residents at risk, it put residents in neighbouring properties at risk, and it put the lives of dozens of firefighters at risk. Frankly, I don’t see an act of deliberate arson in a residential area as much different to attempted murder given the potential consequences.
If you set a bomb off in a shopping centre but the only damage is to property because (either by luck or by warning) there’s no-one there when it goes off – is that just a crime against property?
He deserved what he got imho.Posted 5 years agocrankboyMember
Swiss01 you may wish to actually read up a bit about the cases all the purely property offences received shorter sentences than those involving crimes against the person . The arsonist who got 11 years was sentenced for an offence that stipulates that he recklessly endangered life by his actions , this was the incident where a woman jumped from the upper floor of a burning building to avoid death.
I for one see no reason not to punish harshly those who chose to put others lives at risk by starting fires. Not even if due to luck and the actions of others no one actually died.Posted 5 years ago
on the contrary i think you’ll find that crimes against property are, in general, more heavily proscribed than those against the person. not only that, in this particular case the prosecution failed to prove endangerment. further, in comparison with other cases where life most certainly was endangered this sentence far exceeds previous cases.
now what i’m not saying is that mr arson didn’t deserve a hefty sentence (ms swiss and her london relatives live just down the road from reeves – it was all properly upsetting), just that the sentencing should have some context and (this just being my opinion) that the law should be weighted far more heavily in cases where actual harm occurs.Posted 5 years ago
here’s your linky for sentencingPosted 5 years ago
The topic ‘At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader….’ is closed to new replies.