Stephen Lawrence case

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

The minimum term for murder should calculated as the greater of 30 years or 70 - victims age.

Really? All murders? Someone like Levi Bellfield: I don't think anyone would argue, but 30 years minimum for a battered wife killing her husband after years of violent abuse?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

What is actually required is a fundamental reform of the law of murder, which continues to require a "mandatory life sentence" if the very broad brush offence of "murder" is committed, creating numerous legal absurdities.

Could you give example of the very broad brush offence of "murder" and elaborate on those legal absurdities please?

I don't really see why this particular case should be the one to re-set the guideline tarriff - if anything, a less publically known case ought to be used, to avoid claims of press/public sentiment manipulation of the judiciary.

Perhaps but by it's very nature we wouldn't know much, if any of a less publically known case and therefore wouldn't be having this conversation. A less publically known would less likely be a catalyst for reform/change. Laws often change to suit and meet the needs and requirements of maintaining society. As such said laws are often reveiwed and changed when there is a public outcry because the present ones no longer fit. The double jeapody laws for example were changed in part because of this case. Without there wouldn't have been the catalyst or motivationto reveiw and change them.

It is impossible to balance taking a life with a prison sentence - on that basis, why do you think a 12 year minimum tarriff is too low? What would you like it to be?

A prison sentence isn't, for me, a balancing act. It's not about rehabilitation. It's a punishment and a deterrent. On that basis 12 years in my opinion isn't enough. With an ageing population (i.e. people living longer) Dobson and Norris could be released in their 50s, they could still feasible have another 40 years of life to live as free men (the quality of which isn't a concern here).

Motive aside if you are under 18 and ruthlessly murder someone (without any mitigating circumstances) you will have to serve a minimum of 12 years. Reads to me as though 'the price of life is worth at least 12 years of the criminal's life.

Seems that the price of life is being short changed here.

I can't do the clever quoting system, but taking your paras in turn.

Two examples - battered women who kill their abusive spouses; and "mercy killings" of terminally ill relatives. In the vast majority of cases these acts comply with the legal definition of murder. In order to avoid the mandatory life sentence, pseudo absurd partial defences of "diminished responsibility" are often used, when the reality is the person committing the act was absolutely aware of what they were doing. The partial defence is only required to avoid the mandatory life sentence.

"We" don't need to "know" about cases for judges to be able to reconsider the guidlines and precedents. All that is important is that there is consistency and, where whole-sale change is required, that is done by parliament. I am nervous of the judiciary being hounded into handing out indiscriminate and inconsistent sentences due to a particular media vendetta or a particularly vocal group which may not reflect justice - it is why I am fundamentally oposed to elected judges who would act by way of "popularity" rather than what I would consider justice (the two not being the same thing - "popular opinion" being largely not what the "people" want, but what the loudest people want). That's not to say that the law shouldn't change as society changes - but that process should not be based on one crime, or one example. It should be much more deep seated than that, and I don't think we are generally at that stage with murder (yet?). Don't forget, you never hear about the vast majority of murders - only the most "interesting" cases which by their definition are likely to involve a particular criminal, crime or victim. Those specific notorious examples are not representative of the majority of cases.

As to the purpose of prison, well in my view it is a balance between deterrent, punishment, protection and the "scale of justice" i.e. balance. It's worth noting that most murderers are not deterred by the thread of imprisonment - even given the 90% conviction rate. The sentence for murder must be an arbitrary length of time unless we have full life terms or capital punishment. And on that basis, why 10, 12 or 20 years?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I thought this would descend into stop & search chat and institutional racism (or not), not sentencing tarrifs!

Shows how (un)predictable forums can be sometimes...

Why? This is about sentencing.

The Lawrence case is about so much more than the murder, rightly or wrongly.

For me anyway, it's about the police and discrimination.

Indeed, but the latest development is the sentencing of the murderers. Maybe it was about the police and discrimination, 18 years ago?

As to stop and search, we've done that before in different contexts. Funamentally, some see discriminatory stop and search as being a necessary evil, some see it as completely unacceptable. It's probably somewhere between the two. Personally I cannot see the point of stopping and searching pensioners just to give the impression of balance, when in fact youths are more likely to be committing crime. It's a waste of time and pandering to the PC brigade for no benefit. Equally I can understand innocent members of certain communities taking great offence at being constantly stopped by the police based on nothing more than their age and/or ethnicity.

But do you blame the police for doing it, or the criminals for creating such a presumption?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I thought this would descend into stop & search chat and institutional racism (or not), not sentencing tarrifs!

Shows how (un)predictable forums can be sometimes...

Why? This is about sentencing.

The Lawrence case is about so much more than the murder, rightly or wrongly.

For me anyway, it's about the police and discrimination.

The Police's initial response to investigating the crime could be argued as a demonstration of (what was then) institutional racism.

I'm not sure what this has to do with stop and search. Back then and even now the police officers would have likely stopped and searched Stephen Lawrence but not the group of white boys (proven). While I do think black on black crimes are somewhat over reported in contrast to white on white crimes (guns, stabbings, knives). With the sheer level of knife crimes involving young people they only have themselves to blame.

rick_chasey

I only mention stop & search because it is always mentioned on things like newsnight whenever police and discrimination are mentioned. There was a whole feature on it on Newsnight last night. It seems the most divisive police tactic that there is, and guys like Macpherson have mentioned it numerous times as a real problem.

There was some stat looking at the how likely a black person was likely to be stopped & searched versus a white in 1990 and now.

It was something like 40-50 times more likely in 1990 and now it's 10 times < or figures in that ballpark.

It's the one issue that is mentioned in places where there is police tension > granted that could be cause or effect, but it's been cited as a problem now for 30 years.

It's also, in theory, easier to measure then attitudes of police in investigations. The criticism originally in the Stephen Lawrence case was the police didn't take it seriously enough because of his ethnicity. I remember reading something about investigators assuming it was gang related because of the ethnicity of the victim etc - and generally treating it like a 2nd class murder, with less care and attention.

We now know the case brought to light the problems the police have, and now we have, from a justice perspective, partial correction > but how reflective is this of how more equal things are in the Met?

DonDaddyD

Things are no more equal in the MET.

But I think it's a seperate issue and needs its own thread.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

I only mention stop & search because it is always mentioned on things like newsnight whenever police and discrimination are mentioned. There was a whole feature on it on Newsnight last night. It seems the most divisive police tactic that there is, and guys like Macpherson have mentioned it numerous times as a real problem.

There was some stat looking at the how likely a black person was likely to be stopped & searched versus a white in 1990 and now.

It was something like 40-50 times more likely in 1990 and now it's 10 times < or figures in that ballpark.

It's the one issue that is mentioned in places where there is police tension > granted that could be cause or effect, but it's been cited as a problem now for 30 years.

What are the respective offending rates?

rick_chasey

Would love to know.

No idea.

Would also like to know the success rate of all stop & searches.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would love to know.

No idea.

Would also like to know the success rate of all stop & searches.

Well without knowing the offending rate, it's hard to criticise or praise the stop and search stats.

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

I read an interesting stat once - that a bobby on the beat will only walk past a burglary once every 8 years. That doesn't mean that it's not worth having the police on patrol, because who knows how many burglaries that prevents?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Paulie W

And so Rick turns a perfectly sensible discussion about setencing tariffs into a debate about stop and search!! The man is a supreme puppetmaster!!!

rick_chasey

Paulie W wrote:

And so Rick turns a perfectly sensible discussion about setencing tariffs into a debate about stop and search!! The man is a supreme puppetmaster!!!

Hah.

I blame newsnight.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Never and no.

Does that change anything I said above? Whether s&s acts a a deterrent to crime isn't dependent on my personal experience. I've never been arrested either, but I'm pretty sure the threat of doing so acts as a deterrent to crime too.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Never and no.

Does that change anything I said above? Whether s&s acts a a deterrent to crime isn't dependent on my personal experience. I've never been arrested either, but I'm pretty sure the threat of doing so acts as a deterrent to crime too.

There is an alternative view that stop and search acts as a stimulus for crime; the 'if I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I might as well act like one!' attitude.

W1

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Never and no.

Does that change anything I said above? Whether s&s acts a a deterrent to crime isn't dependent on my personal experience. I've never been arrested either, but I'm pretty sure the threat of doing so acts as a deterrent to crime too.

There is an alternative view that stop and search acts as a stimulus for crime; the 'if I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I might as well act like one!'.

Do you agree with that view? I don't think I can - or at least it's a chicken and egg argument. Surely the people really to blame are the criminals who create the stereotype in the first place?

The view that I can accept is that such a policy breeds resentment against the police, who (pragmatically) require community support in order to do their jobs more effectively. On balance though do we want the police not to have powers of stop and search? Or just to use such powers "blindly" (and, in my view, therefore pointlessly).

notsoblue

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Never and no.

Does that change anything I said above? Whether s&s acts a a deterrent to crime isn't dependent on my personal experience. I've never been arrested either, but I'm pretty sure the threat of doing so acts as a deterrent to crime too.

There is an alternative view that stop and search acts as a stimulus for crime; the 'if I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I might as well act like one!'.

This^. Also, it really does cause resentment and/or general bad feeling towards the police from those who have been
stopped and searched. Even those who aren't at all likely to exhibit criminal behaviour. So even if it can be proven to be an effective crime prevention measure, you really have to ask yourself if its worth the negative consequences for police/community relationships. Personally, I don't think it is.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I would have thought that the "success" rate is absolutely tiny, but the fact that stop and search happens at all would act as a deterrent.

How often have you been stopped and searched, W1? Do you know what its like?

Never and no.

Does that change anything I said above? Whether s&s acts a a deterrent to crime isn't dependent on my personal experience. I've never been arrested either, but I'm pretty sure the threat of doing so acts as a deterrent to crime too.

There is an alternative view that stop and search acts as a stimulus for crime; the 'if I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I might as well act like one!'.

This^. Also, it really does cause resentment and/or general bad feeling towards the police from those who have been
stopped and searched. Even those who aren't at all likely to exhibit criminal behaviour. So even if it can be proven to be an effective crime prevention measure, you really have to ask yourself if its worth the negative consequences for police/community relationships. Personally, I don't think it is.

Then, in my view, such resentment is understanable but misguided. The resentment should be focused on those who cause the police to stop and search and innocent person because they conform to a stereotype, not against the police themselves who shouldn't be oliged to stop and search pensioners for the sake of keeping up (completely false) appearences. Is that possible? Maybe, maybe not.

rick_chasey

By the way:

The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms following a request from a member of the public.

http://t.co/YJb5dWvy

W1 - how big a problem do you think racism is in the police generally?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This^. Also, it really does cause resentment and/or general bad feeling towards the police from those who have been
stopped and searched. Even those who aren't at all likely to exhibit criminal behaviour. So even if it can be proven to be an effective crime prevention measure, you really have to ask yourself if its worth the negative consequences for police/community relationships. Personally, I don't think it is.

Then, in my view, such resentment is understanable but misguided. The resentment should be focused on those who cause the police to stop and search and innocent person because they conform to a stereotype, not against the police themselves who shouldn't be oliged to stop and search pensioners for the sake of keeping up (completely false) appearences. Is that possible? Maybe, maybe not.

Hmm, well I don't think it is possible. And its not very reasonable to expect innocent people who are affected by this to channel their resentment at criminals who resemble them. If you have never been stopped and searched just because you match a (very broad) police profile I think its quite easy to be fine with the current state of affairs.

I know where you're coming from though, having been stopped at searched only a handful of occaisions and then only because I was matching a particular profile at the time, I personally don't have a big problem with it. The police instantly changed their attitude and were almost apologetic when they heard my accent. But close family who have had to deal with this for a long time have a more weary attitude to it. And I can understand why.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

By the way:

The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms following a request from a member of the public.

http://t.co/YJb5dWvy

W1 - how big a problem do you think racism is in the police generally?

I don't know how big a problem racism is in society generally. I have even less knowledge of the problems with the police. How big a problem do you think it is?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This^. Also, it really does cause resentment and/or general bad feeling towards the police from those who have been
stopped and searched. Even those who aren't at all likely to exhibit criminal behaviour. So even if it can be proven to be an effective crime prevention measure, you really have to ask yourself if its worth the negative consequences for police/community relationships. Personally, I don't think it is.

Then, in my view, such resentment is understanable but misguided. The resentment should be focused on those who cause the police to stop and search and innocent person because they conform to a stereotype, not against the police themselves who shouldn't be oliged to stop and search pensioners for the sake of keeping up (completely false) appearences. Is that possible? Maybe, maybe not.

Hmm, well I don't think it is possible. And its not very reasonable to expect innocent people who are affected by this to channel their resentment at criminals who resemble them. If you have never been stopped and searched just because you match a (very broad) police profile I think its quite easy to be fine with the current state of affairs.

I know where you're coming from though, having been stopped at searched only a handful of occaisions and then only because I was matching a particular profile at the time, I personally don't have a big problem with it. The police instantly changed their attitude and were almost apologetic when they heard my accent. But close family who have had to deal with this for a long time have a more weary attitude to it. And I can understand why.

I can also understand it, having been stopped (albeit not searched) by the police because I fell into a specific category, whilst being completely innocent. I can imagine, certainly, the resentment that it might cause. But, in the same way that I support random breath testing, I don't have a problem with the theory of stopping people who fit the category of those who are more likely to be committing an offence, on the basis that such a power deters people from committing such offences in the first place, because they are likely to be caught.

I appreciate that it's impossible to determine the effect (positive or negative) of such a policy so there is no right or wrong answer, but none-the-less think on balance such a deterrent is a good thing. Others more closely affected by such a policy will probably not agree - fair enough. But I struggle to blame the police for this and certainly wouldn't support "blind" s&s as it's such a risible idea.

bails87

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would love to know.

No idea.

Would also like to know the success rate of all stop & searches.

Well without knowing the offending rate, it's hard to criticise or praise the stop and search stats.?

Not got time to read it now, but: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /18105.htm

Section 20 onwards looks relevant, it's only about YOUNG black/white/asian/mixed criminals though, not all.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

By the way:

The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms following a request from a member of the public.

http://t.co/YJb5dWvy

W1 - how big a problem do you think racism is in the police generally?

I don't know how big a problem racism is in society generally. I have even less knowledge of the problems with the police. How big a problem do you think it is?

In (parts) of London and other inner cities I'd say it's a problem that has significance - enough to alienate significant and noticeable parts of communities.

From time to time those problems bubble over enough to be noticed by the rest of the country - at which point it all gets condemned, discussed, and then brushed back under the carpet.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I appreciate that it's impossible to determine the effect (positive or negative) of such a policy so there is no right or wrong answer, but none-the-less think on balance such a deterrent is a good thing. Others more closely affected by such a policy will probably not agree - fair enough. But I struggle to blame the police for this and certainly wouldn't support "blind" s&s as it's such a risible idea.

Well we clearly have very different attitudes towards authority, so I'll just leave it at that. But I do agree with you on blind s&s being a silly idea.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

By the way:

The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms following a request from a member of the public.

http://t.co/YJb5dWvy

W1 - how big a problem do you think racism is in the police generally?

I don't know how big a problem racism is in society generally. I have even less knowledge of the problems with the police. How big a problem do you think it is?

In (parts) of London and other inner cities I'd say it's a problem that has significance - enough to alienate significant and noticeable parts of communities.

From time to time those problems bubble over enough to be noticed by the rest of the country - at which point it all gets condemned, discussed, and then brushed back under the carpet.

How much of the Stop and Search is born out of generalisations and prejudice trumped up to claims of racism because it happens so much.

Look, knife crime (again) there is a problem with that and the assumption is that if you have a group of JD sports clad teenagers in socio-economically deprived areas simnply hanging about you are likely to get a knife. Unfortunately there is a higher percentage of ethnic minorities living in that social underbelly and so ae likely to be stopped and search as they make up a considerable percentage of the target demographic: Young, JD sports clad and hanging about.

Just playing devils advocate. It wasn't the stop and search that determined the police were institutionally racist it's how they treated and investigated the crime because it was a black person.

Let's move onto Duggan - you remember the black guy who got shot by police in Tottenham/started the riots. Was that an act of racism or extreme prejudice? He wasn't a drug dealer and it's still up in air as to whether they should have shot him.

And while I'm at it I'll point out the generalisation and biased prejudice of those on here preaching that at least its one less dealer on the streets. Ironic that.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

Let's move onto Duggan - you remember the black guy who got shot by police in Tottenham/started the riots. Was that an act of racism or extreme prejudice? He wasn't a drug dealer and it's still up in air as to whether they should have shot him.
.....

I think you mean he wasn't a convicted drug dealer. In fact he had no convictions at all

Beyond that neither you nor I can say. He may or may not have been a drug dealer

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I appreciate that it's impossible to determine the effect (positive or negative) of such a policy so there is no right or wrong answer, but none-the-less think on balance such a deterrent is a good thing. Others more closely affected by such a policy will probably not agree - fair enough. But I struggle to blame the police for this and certainly wouldn't support "blind" s&s as it's such a risible idea.

Well we clearly have very different attitudes towards authority, so I'll just leave it at that. But I do agree with you on blind s&s being a silly idea.

In some respects we do, no doubt.

I should add - I'm generally no police apologist, but I'm just not certain that the police can be blamed for an apparently discriminatory s&s policy if that is what reflects the offending rates. In fact that would appear a pragmatic stance to take, given that we agree that there is no point in blindly stopping and searching everyone.

Where our views are clearly at odds is the overall balance of such a policy.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

How much of the Stop and Search is born out of generalisations and prejudice trumped up to claims of racism because it happens so much.

And while I'm at it I'll point out the generalisation and biased prejudice of those on here preaching that at least its one less dealer on the streets. Ironic that.

I literally have no idea what you're saying in these two sentences....!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I appreciate that it's impossible to determine the effect (positive or negative) of such a policy so there is no right or wrong answer, but none-the-less think on balance such a deterrent is a good thing. Others more closely affected by such a policy will probably not agree - fair enough. But I struggle to blame the police for this and certainly wouldn't support "blind" s&s as it's such a risible idea.

Well we clearly have very different attitudes towards authority, so I'll just leave it at that. But I do agree with you on blind s&s being a silly idea.

In some respects we do, no doubt.

I should add - I'm generally no police apologist, but I'm just not certain that the police can be blamed for an apparently discriminatory s&s policy if that is what reflects the offending rates. In fact that would appear a pragmatic stance to take, given that we agree that there is no point in blindly stopping and searching everyone.

Where our views are clearly at odds is the overall balance of such a policy.

Its interesting though, the difference. I think it was this (not unreasonable) thing that you said that emphasized it to me:

I don't have a problem with the theory of stopping people who fit the category of those who are more likely to be committing an offence, on the basis that such a power deters people from committing such offences in the first place, because they are likely to be caught.

I disagree that people (specifically those who may be at risk of carrying out criminal behaviour) will react positively to being on the sharp end of authoritative power in a free society. Personally it isn't the risk of being caught and punished that prevents me from committing crimes. I reckon thats most people's attitude. And I think its reflected in rates of reoffending. The reason that people offend isn't because the police don't have enough power.

Anyway, drifting off point quite a bit. I too have some sympathy with the police, its a pretty difficult situation to deal with. I'm not sure what balance should be struck. I can just see how the current situation causes more problems than it solves.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

How much of the Stop and Search is born out of generalisations and prejudice trumped up to claims of racism because it happens so much.

And while I'm at it I'll point out the generalisation and biased prejudice of those on here preaching that at least its one less dealer on the streets. Ironic that.

I literally have no idea what you're saying in these two sentences....!

Stop and search is more about police making hiddeous generalisations and prejudice. Because it's so widespread said generalisation and prejudice is esculated by complainers to institutional racism. I don't think stop and search in modern times is by itself institutionally racist.

I can't remember where I was going with the rest. I'm a little sugar rushed.