Rapist to have legal costs paid for by his victim - Page 4

me283 · 17-10-2005, 08:46

If the legal system in this country had any humanity, the guy would have been locked up never to be released. Those who say that prison should be about refor and rehabilitation, should consider why this guy repeatdly offended. They should also question the oft-stated belief that prisoners learn to be worse criminals. Did this guy go to prison as a shoplifter? No, he was and always will be a sex offender.

On the subject of the woman claiming compo many years later, no, she probably shouldn't have. But the advice given at the time of offences *yes, I have personal experience) is that "you may win the case, but they may not have two pennies, so you will lose out anyway". One needs to ask how and why a convicted sex offender was given the opportunity to win millions in the first place.

cookie_365 · 17-10-2005, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

One needs to ask how and why a convicted sex offender was given the opportunity to win millions in the first place.

Well, I'm assuming he walked into a shop selling lottery tickets, and bought one. Isn't that how it usually works?

me283 · 18-10-2005, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Well, I'm assuming he walked into a shop selling lottery tickets, and bought one. Isn't that how it usually works?

Yes, very clever. Try reading my post again. It is pretty simple, you should be able to make sense of it.

Nugget · 18-10-2005, 14:38

He was given the opportunity to win millions because there is no law to stop him from doing so.

Herein lies the main problem (IMO) in the logic of the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade (and no, that's not directed at anyone in particular). If you have a law that stops ex-prisoners from buying lottery tickets, that law will apply to all prisoners.

This means that that OAP and the retired vicar would not be able to buy them. Their crime? Not paying their council tax. Not exactly what you'd call at the hard edge of violent crime.

Unfortunately, and as much as people may not like it, Hoare was on release (I believe it was day release) from prison, as his sentence was drawing to an end. He bought a lottery ticket and was lucky enough to win. That's it. There are no laws to prevent this, so there's nothing anybody can do about (regardless of whether you think he should remain in jail forever).

The flip side is that there is also a law that limits the time a victim of crime has to pursue the perpetrator for damages (or whatever). If they fail to pursue their claim within that time limit, then I'm afraid that really is tough.

If you believe the law should be changed, then fine, that's your opinion. However, don't forget that this woman pursued this claim purely because he won some money - ultimately, she lost out. What would have happened if Hoare had stayed in jail? I can guarantee that she wouldn't have received any money than.

me283 · 18-10-2005, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

He was given the opportunity to win millions because there is no law to stop him from doing so.

Herein lies the main problem (IMO) in the logic of the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade (and no, that's not directed at anyone in particular). If you have a law that stops ex-prisoners from buying lottery tickets, that law will apply to all prisoners.

This means that that OAP and the retired vicar would not be able to buy them. Their crime? Not paying their council tax. Not exactly what you'd call at the hard edge of violent crime.

Unfortunately, and as much as people may not like it, Hoare was on release (I believe it was day release) from prison, as his sentence was drawing to an end. He bought a lottery ticket and was lucky enough to win. That's it. There are no laws to prevent this, so there's nothing anybody can do about (regardless of whether you think he should remain in jail forever).

The flip side is that there is also a law that limits the time a victim of crime has to pursue the perpetrator for damages (or whatever). If they fail to pursue their claim within that time limit, then I'm afraid that really is tough.

If you believe the law should be changed, then fine, that's your opinion. However, don't forget that this woman pursued this claim purely because he won some money - ultimately, she lost out. What would have happened if Hoare had stayed in jail? I can guarantee that she wouldn't have received any money than.

I understand all of that Nug. My points were twofold. Firstly, IMO he should have been locked up for good; secondly, although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place. All IMO you understand.

Nugget · 18-10-2005, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

I understand all of that Nug. My points were twofold. Firstly, IMO he should have been locked up for good; secondly, although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place. All IMO you understand.

I agree with you (for once

)

As I've said, the problem is that, without overhauling the entire legal system, nothing can or will change.

You know from previous discussions that I believe that, regardless of the crime, once your sentence has been served, you should be released, and this includes all criminals. Now, the severity of Hoares crimes raise a question about his sentencing in the first place, although that is a different topic entirely.

Unfortunately, I personally feel that this woman was misguided in pushing for compensation after the time limit. Equally unfortunately, a convicted rapist won several million pounds on the lottery. I'm not saying that I agree with it, just that I understand how it happens.

cookie_365 · 18-10-2005, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

Yes, very clever. Try reading my post again. It is pretty simple, you should be able to make sense of it.

I've read your post again. Agree it's pretty simple, I believe I've made sense of it.

And I still stand by my last post

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

I understand all of that Nug. My points were twofold. Firstly, IMO he should have been locked up for good; secondly, although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place. All IMO you understand.

How, as a prisoner on day release, could he *not* have had the opportunity to buy a lottery ticket ?

Graham · 19-10-2005, 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place. All IMO you understand.

Ok, so even though on day release, let's say he shouldn't have had the opportunity to buy a lottery ticket.

What about a packet of cigarettes?

What about a pint of beer?

What about a pint of milk?

What about putting a quid in a fruit machine in the pub?

What about putting a bet on a horse in a bookies?

Where would you draw the line and how exactly would you enforce it?

Paddy1 · 19-10-2005, 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

how exactly would you enforce it?

Don't give him any money

me283 · 19-10-2005, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Ok, so even though on day release, let's say he shouldn't have had the opportunity to buy a lottery ticket.

What about a packet of cigarettes?

What about a pint of beer?

What about a pint of milk?

What about putting a quid in a fruit machine in the pub?

What about putting a bet on a horse in a bookies?

Where would you draw the line and how exactly would you enforce it?

Well, Paddy's idea would be quite simple, but effective! But if you read my earlier posts Graham, you will see that I believed he should just have been incarcerated for life.

The things that you mention suggest that he should be out on day release as some sort of pleasure trip? Tell me, would he be allowed to have five or six pints on day release? Or drive a car? Or chat up women? Someone somewhere has already drawn a line.

Graham · 19-10-2005, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Ok, so even though on day release, let's say he shouldn't have had the opportunity to buy a lottery ticket.

What about a packet of cigarettes

[...]

Where would you draw the line and how exactly would you enforce it?

Well, Paddy's idea would be quite simple, but effective!

So he borrows a tenner from a mate.

Quote:

But if you read my earlier posts Graham, you will see that I believed he should just have been incarcerated for life.

Yes, but then you went on to say "although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place." which suggests that, as a general principle, you think that prisoners *should* be allowed out on day release, but denied the ability to do some things, so I was trying to find out exactly what things you would consider "acceptable" and which would be "unacceptable" for a day release prisoner.

Quote:

The things that you mention suggest that he should be out on day release as some sort of pleasure trip? Tell me, would he be allowed to have five or six pints on day release? Or drive a car? Or chat up women? Someone somewhere has already drawn a line.

Yes, there are and should be some restrictions (eg IIRC Jeffrey Archer was locked back up after going to a party whilst on Day Release!) and no, Day Release is not some sort of pleasure trip.

The Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs had the following to say about Day Release on the 7th of January 2005:

* * * * *

[...] "The best way of reducing re-offending is to ensure that prisoners on their release have the ability to get into work and a home to go to."

[...]

"Overcrowding is having a hugely damaging impact on the delivery of rehabilitative regimes across the prison estate, both in terms of quality and quantity of appropriate interventions. We express scepticism about the Home Office's projection that the prison population will stabilise at about 80,000 by the end of the present decade, exactly matching estimated capacity. This projection depends on very large assumptions about the net effect of sentencing changes.

"Regrettably, overcrowding is likely to remain a feature of our prison system for the foreseeable future. It should not be used as an excuse for ignoring the issue of rehabilitation and failing to follow examples of good practice."

[...]

"There should be much greater use of day release schemes on the German model to enable prisoners to experience work in the community prior to their release, and demonstrate their abilities and trustworthiness to employers."

[...]

"The complacent thinking that nothing can be done to rehabilitate short-term prisoners has crippled the response to rehabilitative treatment of those prisoners. A radical rethink is required. This should comprise effective assessment, provision of work and training, and assistance with resettlement."

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../193/19303.htm

* * * * *

But short of following a prisoner around all the time or having some sort of GPS tracking to record *exactly* where he goes or making them wear a big badge that says "Prisoner on Day Release, don't sell me a lottery ticket", there's really no way that you can prevent them from doing all the sorts of things that appear so unacceptable to some.

And, one final point, if he'd only won a tenner, would there *really* have been such a great fuss about this...?

me283 · 19-10-2005, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, but then you went on to say "although on day release he was still technically a prisoner, and (again IMO) should not have had the opportunity to buy a ticket in the first place." which suggests that, as a general principle, you think that prisoners *should* be allowed out on day release, but denied the ability to do some things, so I was trying to find out exactly what things you would consider "acceptable" and which would be "unacceptable" for a day release prisoner.

As a general rule, I don't think prisoners should be let out on day release.

Graham · 19-10-2005, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

As a general rule, I don't think prisoners should be let out on day release.

The Home Office Select Committee disagrees with you.

PS and so do I

me283 · 19-10-2005, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The Home Office Select Committee disagrees with you.

PS and so do I

Sure, and I have no problem with that. I was just stating my belief. To me, it should be prison until you are released. But then I do have (apparently) quite Draconian views on that

19-10-2005, 21:05

The last thing we'd want is for offenders who have been incarcerated for some time to be gradually given experience of the outside world. Best to just chuck em out when they've served their sentence, let em sink or swim and watch re-offending rates rise even higher than the absurd level they are already at.