Justice

[bhaexpress]

This policy of council/housing association tenants possibly being evicted if found guilty of rioting/looting. All well and good of course, but if on benefits the council will have a legal duty of rehousing them in the private sector at vastly more expense to the tax payer!!

Not quite true actually. Single people would have to fend for themselves. Families would be placed in lodgings or even have the children fostered. Councils and Housing Associations have more powers than they used to and now the 'ASBO' breed are starting to feel the backlash. Personally I would rather house all of these regular miscreants on a barren Hebridean where they could either learn to live together or else kill each other. Harsh as that may seem why should the law abiding citizens of this country be expected to put up with people who just refuse to behave.

 

[Gwylan]

How can you seriously compare what those bastards did over a 4 day period to speeding and parking offences?

I said no such thing.

I was responding to Mo's post which said that to deal with major offences like arson and looting, the lawmakers should start providing heavier penalties for minor offences. I was pointing out that the trouble with that approach is that people don't like it and start calling for exemptions.

 

[Bwian]

So what are the sentences begin handed out? 6 months seems like f*** all after all the damage done. and 80 pounds is a nonsense. They should be given 6 months cleaning the mess up 10 hours a day. Maybe they will even get to speak to some people whose lives they have ruined.

I agree that they should be made to clean up and repair all of the damage they caused. Tag them all too-in by 6pm, including weekends, until they've repaid the damage. Some of them will be quite old before they have the tags removed.

 

[sydney]

this has been a stupendous topic of conversation in the media over here , all the so called experts having their two-penny worth , they don't get the mentality of the little shits we are talking about here ..........rather than a penal sentence or a conviction , how about a compulsory all expenses pain stint in places like iraq , afgahnistan , somalia , and eritrea ...........give them a shovel and a bag of seeds , plasters and iodine ointment , get them to use their copious amounts of energy on something good instead of this degenerative behaviour , shut down youtube,facebook and all the rest of the bollox ,burn their i-phones ,their ps2 and their nintendo's ....we have bread a generation of f***ing idiots , need to make good ...end of..!

 

[happypig]

Magistrates maximum sentence is 6 months, however for either-way offences such as assault, affray etc, then there is the option to send to the crown court. They can also commit to the crown court for sentence if they feel the case turns out to be more serious than first thought. If two similar offences are committed then the maximum is 6 months for each.
If a defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity, then he is entitled to a third discount on the sentence. There is also the policy of early release after serving half a sentence so in reality, someone getting 6 months will actually serve two.
Sentencing is led by the Sentencing Guidelines Council and provides for an approach whereby there is a starting point and then aggravating and mitigating factors are considered; in the case of the rioters/looters then things like premeditation and group action would be aggravating factors but there's no exhaustive list as long as the magistrates' reasons are sound.

 

[HovaGirl]

This policy of council/housing association tenants possibly being evicted if found guilty of rioting/looting. All well and good of course, but if on benefits the council will have a legal duty of rehousing them in the private sector at vastly more expense to the tax payer!!

That's the point. They won't.

 

[Bwian]

I said no such thing.

I was responding to Mo's post which said that to deal with major offences like arson and looting, the lawmakers should start providing heavier penalties for minor offences. I was pointing out that the trouble with that approach is that people don't like it and start calling for exemptions.

Apologies. First read seemed like you were-missed Mo's bit.

 

[HovaGirl]

The trouble with the zero tolerance approach is that when people say "every minor offence should be dealt with in the strongest possible terms" what they mean is "some minor offences". People will rattle their papers and talk about stiffer penalties but would start fuming if speeding offences were met by prison sentences or parking on double-yellow lines warranted a £1000 fines. There have been countless threads on NSC about speed cameras and parking with people looking to avoid penalties, so there'll be no support for zero tolerance there.

MPs have been queuing up to decry the rioters but these same MPs are fighting hard to resist changes to their expenses rules. There are several MPs in the Commons (and in the government itself) who are calling for stiffer penalties for looters, yet would have been arrested if they'd practised their expenses-fiddling within the confines of a private company.

That's the trouble with zero tolerance, it's zero tolerance for other people's offences but plenty of tolerance for mine.

Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast. The traffic police deal with motoring offences and MPs expenses are a separate matter. One TV prog was showing wastelands of playgrounds and social places, giving the impression they had been decimated by Government cuts, when, in fact, they had been trashed by the local yobbery. If the yobs can't respect their own children's or little siblings' playground, then what hope is there of them respecting anything else? Zero tolerance is about finding and dealing with the yobs who trash such places, or who plaster everywhere in graffitti, or who pee or swear in public or who shoplift. The thinking is that much of this sort of thing is undertaken by young people, and if this type of activity is dealt with by the police and courts when they are young, then it nips their growing criminal career in the bud, before they get a chance to progress to more serious offences. It has worked in New York. It could also work in the UK.

 

[HovaGirl]

Not quite true actually. Single people would have to fend for themselves. Families would be placed in lodgings or even have the children fostered. Councils and Housing Associations have more powers than they used to and now the 'ASBO' breed are starting to feel the backlash. Personally I would rather house all of these regular miscreants on a barren Hebridean where they could either learn to live together or else kill each other. Harsh as that may seem why should the law abiding citizens of this country be expected to put up with people who just refuse to behave.

And pay for it.

 

[kevo]

It will be interesting to see what sentences are handed down given that Charlie Gilmour was jailed for 16 months (!) for, I think, throwing paint at a car and climbing up the cenataph and that twit who pushed a plate of shaving foam into Rupert Murdoch's face got 3 months... will the looters, rioters and arsonists get away with less? I expect so.

 

[lost in london]

From here: UK riots: in courtrooms across country, there was little room for leniency | UK news | The Guardian

"At Camberwell Green magistrates, Nicholas Robinson, 23, an electrical engineering student with no previous convictions, was jailed for the maximum permitted six months after pleading guilty to stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from Lidl in Brixton"

I think that's a pretty good indication of how the courts are looking at this. If he had done that a couple of weeks ago, I guess he would have got a caution. Now his life is probably ruined. I really can't make my mind up about this: yes, he was part of a 'riot' and that kind of mob behaviour can't be allowed and serious messages must be sent out, but ultimately he just nicked some water and getting six months seems a huge sentence.

 

[Badger]

[yt]H1TfZBjgG6c[/yt]

 

[Fef]

From here: UK riots: in courtrooms across country, there was little room for leniency | UK news | The Guardian

"At Camberwell Green magistrates, Nicholas Robinson, 23, an electrical engineering student with no previous convictions, was jailed for the maximum permitted six months after pleading guilty to stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from Lidl in Brixton"

I think that's a pretty good indication of how the courts are looking at this. If he had done that a couple of weeks ago, I guess he would have got a caution. Now his life is probably ruined. I really can't make my mind up about this: yes, he was part of a 'riot' and that kind of mob behaviour can't be allowed and serious messages must be sent out, but ultimately he just nicked some water and getting six months seems a huge sentence.

No. Ultimately he was a part of a riot. He was a rioter. Along with hundreds of others, he participated in a riot. You could argue that each and every member of the riot should be treated as if they had nicked a couple of bottles of water from a supemarket. A crowd is a collection of individuals, each must be punished in turn. He got six months for being a rioter not for stealing water.

He is old enough to know the difference between what is socially acceptable and what is not. If he chooses to participate in and be a part of a riot, then that is up to him. In attacking our society - he attacked me; he should then be made to suffer the consequences of his action. If his life is now ruined, then that's tough - he should have thought of that; frankly, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever and I don't really care if his life is now reduced to abject poverty because he can't find employment.

There are thousands of people who have had their businesses and their lives ruined by the actions of these morons; - it will be a 'long sentence' for them. There are posters here on NSC who have had family members who've had their lives ruined by people like this water-stealing rioter from Brixton. It is people like them - the victims - to whom we should offer our sympathy.

 

[FamilyGuy]

From here: UK riots: in courtrooms across country, there was little room for leniency | UK news | The Guardian

"At Camberwell Green magistrates, Nicholas Robinson, 23, an electrical engineering student with no previous convictions, was jailed for the maximum permitted six months after pleading guilty to stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from Lidl in Brixton"

I think that's a pretty good indication of how the courts are looking at this. If he had done that a couple of weeks ago, I guess he would have got a caution. Now his life is probably ruined. I really can't make my mind up about this: yes, he was part of a 'riot' and that kind of mob behaviour can't be allowed and serious messages must be sent out, but ultimately he just nicked some water and getting six months seems a huge sentence.

... on the other hand what did he need to steal to deserve 6 months then? a bottle of Wine? a case of Scotch? a pair of Nike's? a Toaster? a TV?
People need to simply be taught and to understand what is appropriate behaviour and what is not - and that if you steal then you get punished - and if you take advantage of other people's misfortune then you get punished - and if you join in with what is tantamount to Gang Warfare then you get punished ....

However, thinking this through some more, if you steal a loaf of bread, does that warrant being sent to the Colonies?
Perhaps if you need the stolen bread to keep your family alive then there are mitigating circumstances - but i doubt he stole the bottled water because his family were thirsty!

 

[Gwylan]

Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast.

It didn't take long for someone to prove my point.

A crime is a crime if it's been committed by someone in a tracksuit or a business suit. To say that we should come down hard on "yobs" (whatever that means) but no-one else is skewing the moral compass.

There's a good piece in the Telegraph on this.
The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom Telegraph Blogs

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

The magistrates can give out up to 6 month sentances per crime I believe. Hence why one man who pleaded guilty to stealing from two shops has been given 8 months

 

[HovaGirl]

It didn't take long for someone to prove my point.

A crime is a crime if it's been committed by someone in a tracksuit or a business suit. To say that we should come down hard on "yobs" (whatever that means) but no-one else is skewing the moral compass.

There's a good piece in the Telegraph on this.
The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom Telegraph Blogs

I don't prove your point. Zero Tolerance is a specific term of reference which, to quote Wiki: "imposes automatic punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct." This includes all undesirable conduct, all crime, and not does not allow for mitigating circumstances, such as poverty. It includes crime committed by children and youths, as well as fraud and speeding. The idea is, if you catch the seven-year-old spraying paint all over a building, then he should be punished in the hope that he won't do such a thing again, or progress to worse crimes. It worked in New Jersey and in New York, so we are told.

 

[Simster]

From here: UK riots: in courtrooms across country, there was little room for leniency | UK news | The Guardian

"At Camberwell Green magistrates, Nicholas Robinson, 23, an electrical engineering student with no previous convictions, was jailed for the maximum permitted six months after pleading guilty to stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from Lidl in Brixton"

I think that's a pretty good indication of how the courts are looking at this. If he had done that a couple of weeks ago, I guess he would have got a caution. Now his life is probably ruined. I really can't make my mind up about this: yes, he was part of a 'riot' and that kind of mob behaviour can't be allowed and serious messages must be sent out, but ultimately he just nicked some water and getting six months seems a huge sentence.

My turn to help you make your mind up.

He got the maximum 6 months because he was a rioter, it just so happens that nicking some water was the only crime they could pin on him as an individual. I hope he hates it inside and finds his life ruined, just like the lives he's helped ruin himself.

 

[Early Doors]

From here: UK riots: in courtrooms across country, there was little room for leniency | UK news | The Guardian

"At Camberwell Green magistrates, Nicholas Robinson, 23, an electrical engineering student with no previous convictions, was jailed for the maximum permitted six months after pleading guilty to stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from Lidl in Brixton"

I think that's a pretty good indication of how the courts are looking at this. If he had done that a couple of weeks ago, I guess he would have got a caution. Now his life is probably ruined. I really can't make my mind up about this: yes, he was part of a 'riot' and that kind of mob behaviour can't be allowed and serious messages must be sent out, but ultimately he just nicked some water and getting six months seems a huge sentence.

As you say, it is about sending out a serious message. It's about consequences. One of the idiots, interviewed on the radio, said 'we want to show the police we can do what we want.' Well, the courts reply is, do what you want, and then spend 6 months, and probably the rest of your life paying for it. And despite what anyone says, I doubt 6 months in prison will be a holiday. Not sure that other inmates will be all that impressed with rioters either.

 

[Simster]

Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast. The traffic police deal with motoring offences and MPs expenses are a separate matter. One TV prog was showing wastelands of playgrounds and social places, giving the impression they had been decimated by Government cuts, when, in fact, they had been trashed by the local yobbery. If the yobs can't respect their own children's or little siblings' playground, then what hope is there of them respecting anything else? Zero tolerance is about finding and dealing with the yobs who trash such places, or who plaster everywhere in graffitti, or who pee or swear in public or who shoplift. The thinking is that much of this sort of thing is undertaken by young people, and if this type of activity is dealt with by the police and courts when they are young, then it nips their growing criminal career in the bud, before they get a chance to progress to more serious offences. It has worked in New York. It could also work in the UK.

I still think Gwylan's points stands. Ultimately, your take on zero tolerance is that you suggest we should come down hard on yobs who trash places with heavy sentences, yet not on crimes that are deemed "less unacceptable" by the rest of society, such as traffic offences and expense fiddling.

Personally, I'd just like tough sentences for any crime that was undertaken with a mob mentality and as for crime in general, perhaps a "3 strikes and you're out" policy. There are too many repeat offenders who think they can do what they like because prior sentences have been too leniant.