Six months for nicking a bottle water

rick_chasey

mcj78 wrote:

Maybe the punishment is too lenient & doesn't deter people, maybe prison for the institutionalized is like a holiday camp, maybe we should reform the judicial system & go all corporal punishment & hard labour on their asses?

What, like in America?

Oh wait, they imprison even more of their population (proportionately) and they have even worse rates of various crimes.

It's well proven the size of sentences doesn't prevent people doing crimes - it's the way psychology works.

Prison is probably the worst place you want to put a young guy who's still impressionable. Have his peers be all criminal. Yeah, then he'll learn how to live in society. :roll:

bobinski

flicksta wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I don't disagree that the looting/rioting means he should get a stricter sentence....but six months is idiotic. 100 hours community service would have been more beneficial for everyone.

But where would you draw the line? And why? On the basis that it was "only" water? Because really this thread should read "Six months for rioting and looting". The value of the items is largely immaterial - it is the circumstances of rioting and looting that really determine the sentence.

Unless you'd suggest 100 hours of community service for all of them? I don't think even you could really think that would be reasonable.

It is a sentence for the damage done by the group, not by the individual. And on that basis it really isn't excessive at all.

This is my point. Is there a sliding scale of value? 100 hours community service for £3.50 of water, 105 hours if you nick a Yorkie as well?

There is always a sliding scale in criminal sentencing to reflect role, seriousnes etc.
So, if he was one of those breaking doors or windows to get in then off to the crown court for his 2-3 years. If, after primary burglars or looters had left he nipped in and took advantage then, although his sentence should be harsher to reflect the prevailing conditions eg disorder, he should be treated less seriously or harshly than the others.But how less so? Thats the argument though clearly there are lots here and amongst most of the Judiciary who will disagree. I just think 6 months is too long, a community order where he repays in kind for what he has done is better and custody is a costly and worthless exercise. And given the level of dissaffection and the greed we have seen on our streets i think any suggestion that those who took part in or are thinking about taking part in rioting again will be deterred by these sentences are mistaken. A few perhaps but i think no more than that. Cleaning the streets or painting some old peoples home is often far more humbling and embaressing and educational and worthwhile than a stretch in custody.

neiltb

Raphapimp wrote:

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.
.

.

but they can be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I don't disagree that the looting/rioting means he should get a stricter sentence....but six months is idiotic. 100 hours community service would have been more beneficial for everyone.

But where would you draw the line? And why? On the basis that it was "only" water? Because really this thread should read "Six months for rioting and looting". The value of the items is largely immaterial - it is the circumstances of rioting and looting that really determine the sentence.

Unless you'd suggest 100 hours of community service for all of them? I don't think even you could really think that would be reasonable.

It is a sentence for the damage done by the group, not by the individual. And on that basis it really isn't excessive at all.

I think the value of the items has some relevance, if it does not and six months is the maximum then I am off out to nick a million quid!

It is up to the judge to draw the line, hence not having fixed sentences. This sentence seems ridiculous to me - he is being punished for the action of others in order to placate the baying for blood from the DM brigade.

Six months is the maximum from the magistrates court. If the beak had decided the sentencing powers weren;''t sufficient (i.e. six months wasn't long enough) it would have been sent up to the crown court. it's notable that most of them are being sent up, so this will be one of the lighter sentences in any event, thereby reflecting the low value.

The actions "of others" were in reality the actions of a group, of which he was part. Hence the sentence being harder than a simple shoplifting caution.

And I doubt it's anything to do with the predictable DM "brigade" adn all to do with reflecting the actual seriousness of the offence and it's context. As I said, this isn't about nicking water, it's about rioting and significant damage and distress to many innicocent people. This chap played his part and is paying the price.

I struggle to see how six months for being part of a riot is "harsh". If you only look at the water angle then clearly it is. But that would be to disregard the seriousness of the context which is 99% of this offence. You can't just ignore that because it's a bottle of water, right?

Greg T

neiltb wrote:

Raphapimp wrote:

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.
.

.

but they can be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

I'd go down the whole "met police's record in shooting people" line again - but no-one wants that . . .right . . . .?

mcj78

notsoblue wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

I'm usually verrrrrry liberal

Source?

my criminal record

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

neiltb wrote:

Raphapimp wrote:

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.
.

.

but they can be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

I'd go down the whole "met police's record in shooting people" line again - but no-one wants that . . .right . . . .?

Primarily because its gash

W1

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not convinced these people deserve the harsh sentences. But they're clearly being made an example of. It would appear that the magistrates think this is the best way of preventing this kind of event from happening again. They're probably right. This is very very unfortunate for those who got caught up in the mob mentality though. Chances are they'd never commit the same crimes in "normal" circumstances. But thats life :?

Its pretty ugly to be dancing around in glee at other's misfortune though. It looks like they're paying a hefty price, personally I'd just leave it at that.

Sorry NSB, but "misfortune" my ars@. Deliberate action. Having a laugh being part of a mob. Thieveing because you can, and everyone else is. Contributing to significant and serious distress. The price is nowhere near as much as the cost to innocent business people and residents.

These are the consequences. Should have thought about it -and if you don't, tough - your call. And there's no "glee" that I can see - just relief that this isn't the predictable slap on the wrist.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not convinced these people deserve the harsh sentences. But they're clearly being made an example of. It would appear that the magistrates think this is the best way of preventing this kind of event from happening again. They're probably right. This is very very unfortunate for those who got caught up in the mob mentality though. Chances are they'd never commit the same crimes in "normal" circumstances. But thats life :?

Its pretty ugly to be dancing around in glee at other's misfortune though. It looks like they're paying a hefty price, personally I'd just leave it at that.

Sorry NSB, but "misfortune" my ars@. Deliberate action. Having a laugh being part of a mob. Thieveing because you can, and everyone else is. Contributing to significant and serious distress. The price is nowhere near as much as the cost to innocent business people and residents.

These are the consequences. Should have thought about it -and if you don't, tough - your call. And there's no "glee" that I can see - just relief that this isn't the predictable slap on the wrist.

I could be wrong, but from what I gather this guy was walking home from his girlfriend's and nicked something from a shop that had already been looted? Its not like he helped smashed the doors down... He was an opportunist who thought he could get away with it because everyone else seemed to be. That makes him an idiot, not a criminal that deserves time in my eyes. That stupid lapse in moral judgement is likely to shape the rest of his life. I'd call that misfortune. Its fair enough that you wouldn't.

Greg T

W1 wrote:

And there's no "glee" that I can see .

Sorry mate - this was me when I heard it

jzed

Maybe the chap walked into court like this chap did (not the same bloke - just an illustration):



Chap thinks, they only got me with a bottle of water, I'll get a conditional discharge. Judge after hours of watching pondlife coming in front of him, is unable to do much about the 11 and 12 year olds, so decides to make an example.

Anyway - maybe the kid has a long list of prior offences. EDIT: turns out he has no record.

mcj78

Rick Chasey wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

Maybe the punishment is too lenient & doesn't deter people, maybe prison for the institutionalized is like a holiday camp, maybe we should reform the judicial system & go all corporal punishment & hard labour on their asses?

What, like in America?

Oh wait, they imprison even more of their population (proportionately) and they have even worse rates of various crimes.

It's well proven the size of sentences doesn't prevent people doing crimes - it's the way psychology works.

Prison is probably the worst place you want to put a young guy who's still impressionable. Have his peers be all criminal. Yeah, then he'll learn how to live in society. :roll:

Point taken re. American justice system - around 80% of those imprisoned there are in some way related to the country's generally harsh stance on drugs though, not rioting & looting.

Most of the clowns on the streets probably aren't hardened criminals who would walk through a 6 month sentence still carrying a swagger, they're daft kids who need a good shock to wake them up - if I got 6 months for heading out & joining in the fun, throwing a few rocks at police, stealing water or whatever, i'd seriously think twice about engaging in that sort of behaviour upon my release.

langster

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why does the UK imprison more of its population that the rest of its western European counterparts?

Why does the UK have the highest rape rates in Western Europe?

Why does the UK have the highest number of single mothers and teenage pregnancies in Europe?

Why does the UK have the highest level of knife crime in Western Europe?

It's clearly not to do with the punishment is it?

We all know why already!

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not convinced these people deserve the harsh sentences. But they're clearly being made an example of. It would appear that the magistrates think this is the best way of preventing this kind of event from happening again. They're probably right. This is very very unfortunate for those who got caught up in the mob mentality though. Chances are they'd never commit the same crimes in "normal" circumstances. But thats life :?

Its pretty ugly to be dancing around in glee at other's misfortune though. It looks like they're paying a hefty price, personally I'd just leave it at that.

Sorry NSB, but "misfortune" my ars@. Deliberate action. Having a laugh being part of a mob. Thieveing because you can, and everyone else is. Contributing to significant and serious distress. The price is nowhere near as much as the cost to innocent business people and residents.

These are the consequences. Should have thought about it -and if you don't, tough - your call. And there's no "glee" that I can see - just relief that this isn't the predictable slap on the wrist.

I could be wrong, but from what I gather this guy was walking home from his girlfriend's and nicked something from a shop that had already been looted? Its not like he helped smashed the doors down... He was an opportunist who thought he could get away with it because everyone else seemed to be. That makes him an idiot, not a criminal that deserves time in my eyes. That stupid lapse in moral judgement is likely to shape the rest of his life. I'd call that misfortune. Its fair enough that you wouldn't.

I cycled past Currys in Colliers wood on my way to work on Tuesday. Doors were open, I could easily nipped in and nicked something as I was just passing. I chose not to, he didn't. He get's 6 months, I'm still free to go about my business. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

rick_chasey

mcj78 wrote:

Most of the clowns on the streets probably aren't hardened criminals who would walk through a 6 month sentence still carrying a swagger, they're daft kids who need a good shock to wake them up - if I got 6 months for heading out & joining in the fun, throwing a few rocks at police, stealing water or whatever, i'd seriously think twice about engaging in that sort of behaviour upon my release.

Really?

Or they already hate the police and have to survive prison for 6 months? It's a society all in itself, and it's not one where you want young impressionable kids to spend time if there's a safe alternative for the rest of society.

rick_chasey

Double post.

bobinski

mcj78 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

Maybe the punishment is too lenient & doesn't deter people, maybe prison for the institutionalized is like a holiday camp, maybe we should reform the judicial system & go all corporal punishment & hard labour on their asses?

What, like in America?

Oh wait, they imprison even more of their population (proportionately) and they have even worse rates of various crimes.

It's well proven the size of sentences doesn't prevent people doing crimes - it's the way psychology works.

Prison is probably the worst place you want to put a young guy who's still impressionable. Have his peers be all criminal. Yeah, then he'll learn how to live in society. :roll:

Point taken re. American justice system - around 80% of those imprisoned there are in some way related to the country's generally harsh stance on drugs though, not rioting & looting.

Most of the clowns on the streets probably aren't hardened criminals who would walk through a 6 month sentence still carrying a swagger, they're daft kids who need a good shock to wake them up - if I got 6 months for heading out & joining in the fun, throwing a few rocks at police, stealing water or whatever, i'd seriously think twice about engaging in that sort of behaviour upon my release.

upwards of 2.3 million American are incarcerated, some say 1 in 142 Americans and i dont see much of a deterrent there despite one of the worse indeed downright scary prison systems in the developed world. And the New York experience of 3 strikes is not all its cracked up to be either
Fortunately we "only"imprison about 80-85000 at any one time, 40% of whom have mental health problems etc etc.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

I cycled past Currys in Colliers wood on my way to work on Tuesday. Doors were open, I could easily nipped in and nicked something as I was just passing. I chose not to, he didn't. He get's 6 months, I'm still free to go about my business. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I said I didn't think he deserved it, I didn't say I thought it was wrong.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

I could be wrong, but from what I gather this guy was walking home from his girlfriend's and nicked something from a shop that had already been looted? Its not like he helped smashed the doors down... He was an opportunist who thought he could get away with it because everyone else seemed to be. That makes him an idiot, not a criminal that deserves time in my eyes. That stupid lapse in moral judgement is likely to shape the rest of his life. I'd call that misfortune. Its fair enough that you wouldn't.

A "stupid lapse of moral judgement" is not, and could surely not ever be genuinely considered to be, misfortune. Unless you mean getting caught was just "bad luck"?!

He is, absolutely, a criminal - he was part of a criminal mob undertaking criminal actions which together combined to cause significant damage.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I cycled past Currys in Colliers wood on my way to work on Tuesday. Doors were open, I could easily nipped in and nicked something as I was just passing. I chose not to, he didn't. He get's 6 months, I'm still free to go about my business. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I said I didn't think he deserved it, I didn't say I thought it was wrong.

Fair point. The whole someone else broke in earlier, I'm just an opportunist excuse should be mitigating circumstance and he should not be treated as harshly as the people that broke in originally. I can agree with that. But that is also what appears to be happening, this guy got 6 months but from what I can work out most other are going to crown court for sentancing which means 6 months plus. It maybe harsh but if you don't do it this way you send out the message that you will get away with looting a store that someone else has broken in to earlier and is now undefended so to speak.

W1

Here's someone else who didn't think through the possible consequences of their actions.

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/artic ... ion_notice

Will be interesting to see where that goes too.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

A "stupid lapse of moral judgement" is not, and could surely not ever be genuinely considered to be, misfortune. Unless you mean getting caught was just "bad luck"?!

He is, absolutely, a criminal - he was part of a criminal mob undertaking criminal actions which together combined to cause significant damage.

Ugh, he wasn't part of a mob. I suspect that if he was he'd be referred to the crown court for a stiffer sentence. His misfortune wasn't caught, he misfortune was being made an example of. Which I've already said is probably the right course of action.

bobinski

I would agree he is a criminal because he has committed a criminal offence but that the offence is mitigated because he was not part of the mob(as i understand it) and he has been
stupid and if he has no previous then that perhaps suggests a lapse of moral judgenent and he should be sentenced accordingly.
community order with a lengthy work in the community requirement.

If he was part of the mob then it is different and the offence is more serious given the surrounding cicumstances Then custody likely.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

Fair point. The whole someone else broke in earlier, I'm just an opportunist excuse should be mitigating circumstance and he should not be treated as harshly as the people that broke in originally. I can agree with that. But that is also what appears to be happening, this guy got 6 months but from what I can work out most other are going to crown court for sentancing which means 6 months plus. It maybe harsh but if you don't do it this way you send out the message that you will get away with looting a store that someone else has broken in to earlier and is now undefended so to speak.

Yep, agree. They're probably right to make examples of these people.

mcj78

Rick Chasey wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

Most of the clowns on the streets probably aren't hardened criminals who would walk through a 6 month sentence still carrying a swagger, they're daft kids who need a good shock to wake them up - if I got 6 months for heading out & joining in the fun, throwing a few rocks at police, stealing water or whatever, i'd seriously think twice about engaging in that sort of behaviour upon my release.

Really?

Or they already hate the police and have to survive prison for 6 months? It's a society all in itself, and it's not one where you want young impressionable kids to spend time if there's a safe alternative for the rest of society.

Yes, I agree prison isn't the best place for everyone & maybe he doesn't pose a real threat to society in general, but then what? Instead of imprisoning those caught looting/rioting - where they can at least undergo some form of re-habilitation (let's face it - the guy who got 6 months for nicking water isn't gonna end up sharing a cell with a mass murderer or underworld kingpin, he'll be in with some tax dodger) we give them what, couple of hundred hours community service? Suspended sentence? let him off with a warning?

Personally I'd be happy with the stocks & half a ton of rotten fruit for him, but that's not an option...

sketchley

It's not always about the person going to prison, they may well now be written off becuase of it, they may even comit more crime. The important point here is to dispell the myth of monday night that there were / are no consequences to looting. I think the courts are doing a good job of that and if a few rioters and looters end up having a sh*t life becuase of it that is 100% more preferable than a whole generation thinking crime does not have any meaningful consquence.

Bugger might have to by the mail if I keep talking like that!

Jay dubbleU

Sketchley wrote:

It's not always about the person going to prison, they may well now be written off becuase of it, they may even comit more crime. The important point here is to dispell the myth of monday night that there were / are no consequences to looting. I think the courts are doing a good job of that and if a few rioters and looters end up having a sh*t life becuase of it that is 100% more preferable than a whole generation thinking crime does not have any meaningful consquence.

Bugger might have to by the mail if I keep talking like that!

Way behind buddy - I imagine Mail readers would have him strung up by the thumbs

I think its what a previous Tory government referred to as a Sort Sharp Shock

SimonAH

OK. Stepping in with my tuppence.

Yes. 6 months is way harsh for a one pound theft.
Yes, the American judicial system is a 'king joke and embarrassment (I have a green card BTW and am technically a US resident)
Yes, it will cost the taxpayer around fifteen grand to lock him up for this time.
Yes, harsh sentencing does not generally deter criminals.

BUT
He is not a criminal. He is a random bloke who thought 'uck it, I'll have some of that.

Rioting / looting is not a lifestyle crime like drugs or burglary. It's a once in a lifetime thing. If it is associated with ludicrously harsh penalties then I reckon it's a lot less likely to happen again in British streets.

And a few punishing a few idiots beyond the call of duty is a small price to pay IMO.

Personally I'd be.even harsher. Don't forget three people died as a result of these riots.

In the other hand yesterday I was sent a link to film of a guy getting 20 lashes in Singapore for drunk driving. I won't post the link as it made me queasy and I have a strong stomach. Tell you what though, it's a lot cheaper than six months in jug. And once the cuts on his Harris heal I guarantee you he'll be fine. And teetotal.

mcj78

SimonAH wrote:

In the other hand yesterday I was sent a link to film of a guy getting 20 lashes in Singapore for drunk driving. I won't post the link as it made me queasy and I have a strong stomach. Tell you what though, it's a lot cheaper than six months in jug. And once the cuts on his Harris heal I guarantee you he'll be fine. And teetotal.

Send me the link - i'm feeling frisky 8)

ellieb

Rioting / looting is not a lifestyle crime like drugs or burglary. It's a once in a lifetime thing. If it is associated with ludicrously harsh penalties then I reckon it's a lot less likely to happen again in British streets.

+1

I think the fact that he is not a career criminal is all the more reason the give him a deterrent sentence. He obviously felt he could just casually break the law. He knows a bit better now. Whatever the deeper reasons behind these riots the fact remains an awful lot of people took part because they thought they would not receive any sanction. Safety in numbers seems to have been the calculation.