Riots

[denphone]

Originally Posted by danielf

I've stated several times in this thread that I have absolutely no problem with those actually taking part in the riots/looting going to prison. Sure, it is unacceptable behaviour and needs to be dealt with and deterred. However, I previously listed this case as an example of where a prison sentence seems over the top because this woman was asleep when the looting took place.

Yes, looting = prison. No problem whatsoever.

I had a problem with this case as well as the exorbitant sentences handed down for some instances of inciting (4 years when nothing actually happened e.g.).

I have never suggested that prison was not appropriate for actual looters.

But when you say that nothing happened when these two wanted to incite a riot through Facebook the fact remains that through them we could have had a huge outburst of trouble and someone could have possibly ended up in hospital or even worse then that we could have had a fatality through these idiots so l think the sentence is very fitting for these idiots.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by denphone

But when you say that nothing happened when these two wanted to incite a riot through Facebook the fact remains that through them we could have had a huge outburst of trouble and someone could have possibly ended up in hospital or even worse then that we could have had a fatality through these idiots so l think the sentence is very fitting for these idiots.

True, but we didn't. Once again, I don't object to a custodial sentence here, but four years seems disproportionate given that nothing happened. Also, it's a waste of money.

Originally Posted by danielf

I've stated several times in this thread that I have absolutely no problem with those actually taking part in the riots/looting going to prison. Sure, it is unacceptable behaviour and needs to be dealt with and deterred. However, I previously listed this case as an example of where a prison sentence seems over the top because this woman was asleep when the looting took place.

Yes, looting = prison. No problem whatsoever.

I had a problem with this case as well as the exorbitant sentences handed down for some instances of inciting (4 years when nothing actually happened e.g.). I expect that sentence to be reduced as well, particularly as I read the other day that another person who called for a coop (or something like that) to be torched, only had to write a letter of apology.

I have never suggested that prison was not appropriate for actual looters.

Oh, and I hope this moron receives a lengthy prison spell as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...tudent-custody

I think the sentence for receiving was over the top, but not the incitement one - they shouldn't get a lesser sentence because they weren't succesful in their efforts; are we saying incompetent/stupid criminals should be treated more leniently than the ones who manage to carry out the crime?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think the sentence for receiving was over the top, but not the incitement one - they shouldn't get a lesser sentence because they weren't succesful in their efforts; are we saying incompetent/stupid criminals should be treated more leniently than the ones who manage to carry out the crime?

No, but I thought it was an established principle in law that the gravity of the consequences of one's actions partly determines the sentence.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

I sometimes wonder how people like you manage to carry on doing your job and knowing that in many cases the resulting punishments will not fit the crime and may even turn out to be non-existant.

to you matey!

I could not be a copper Derek and you have far more patience than me, I would hate to see **** bags just getting a smacked hand because the Libs have got there way and ruined the justice system. what is the point of arresting a **** bag when some weak arsed liberal lawyer gets them out with a smacked hand and a stern don't do it again lecture.

Originally Posted by Sirius

I could not be a copper Derek and you have far more patience than me, I would hate to see **** bags just getting a smacked hand because the Libs have got there way and ruined the justice system. what is the point of arresting a **** bag when some weak arsed liberal lawyer gets them out with a smacked hand and a stern don't do it again lecture.

Sirius you have been complaining about liberals and human rights repeatedly instead of discussing the actual sentences or issues actually being talked about. You also consistently misrepresent the opinions of those who you disagree with, dismissing them as weak liberals or other derogatory terms.

I haven't seen many posts from the more liberal members of the forum calling for 'don't do it again' lectures. In fact I think everyone is in agreement that the rioters and looters should probably see the inside of a prison cell which reflects the view of the wider population - including liberals. You seem to be getting angry at a argument that no one is making.

The disagreements are small and usually centre around individual cases such as the case we're talking about where a woman received a 5 month sentence for handling stolen goods. Not looting, not rioting, taking a pair of shorts she knew was stolen. Even then everyone is saying she deserves punishment just probably not time in prison.

Originally Posted by danielf

No, but I thought it was an established principle in law that the gravity of the consequences of one's actions partly determines the sentence.

Not since the Serious Crimes Act 2007.....

Encouraging or assisting crime
Part 2 of the Act came into force on 1 October 2008.

Section 59 abolishes the common law offence of incitement in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, and replaces it with three new offences:

Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence
Section 44 creates the crime of:

• Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
• Intending to encourage or assist its commission.

A person is not taken to have intended to encourage or assist an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act. The offence is triable in the same manner, summarrarily or on indictment, as the anticipated offence (s.55(1)) and, on conviction, a person can be sentenced to the same penalty as applies to the anticipated offence (s.58).

Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed

Section 45 creates the crime of:

• Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
• Believing that:
  • The offence will be committed; and
  • His act will encourage or assist its commission.

The offence is triable in the same manner, summarrarily or on indictment, as the anticipated offence (s.55(1)) and, on conviction, a person can be sentenced to the same penalty as applies to the anticipated offence (s.58).

Encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

Section 46 creates the crime of:

• Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more of a number of offences; and
• Believing that:
  • One or more of those offences will be committed, but having no belief as to which; and
  • His act will encourage or assist the commission of one or more of them.

The offence is triable on indictment (s.55(2)) and, on conviction, a person can be sentenced to the maximum penalty of those applying to the anticipated offences (s.58).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not since the Serious Crimes Act 2007.....

That doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply? It just means that encouraging an offence can attract the same penalties as the actual offence.

On conviction, a person can be sentenced to the same penalty as applies to the anticipated offence (s.58).

Can be. Not will or should be. Plenty of scope to take account of the fact that nothing actually happened. (Which doesn't make it a harmless offence. Just not one that deserves 4 years imo.)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by danielf

That doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply? It just means that encouraging an offence can attract the same penalties as the actual offence.

Either way, it clearly says:



Can be. Not will or should be. Plenty of scope to take account of the fact that nothing actually happened. (Which doesn't make it a harmless offence. Just not one that deserves 4 years imo.)

Yes nothing did happen but it is the possibility of what could have happened and that makes it very serious in the my mind so the judge is taking into acount the potential serious gravity of what could have happened because in law that is just as serious as committing a crime.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

<snipped for brevity>

Good post!

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes nothing did happen but it is the possibility of what could have happened and that makes it very serious in the my mind so the judge is taking into acount the potential serious gravity of what could have happened because in law that is just as serious as committing a crime.

Oh yes, it's a crime alright, and worthy of punishment. Just not worthy of 4 years in jail. Six months seems more appropriate. Just like 5 months for putting a pair of stolen shorts on your head is disproportionate.

I do think that some of the sentences are disproportionate namely the shorts woman and the bottle of water woman ,as for the idiots that tried to start their own riot i think it's about right given that they could have got 10yrs in theory and may well have done had there been any disturbance through their actions ,also they are a pair of numpties and a bit of jail time couldn't hurt ,but of course that isn't how the system works and nor should it .It is strange how over the last 20-30yrs we have all been moaning how the judges are handing out too lenient sentences and as soon as they do start then people start questioning the sentences ,i am one of those people and the reason why is because of the inconsistency ,sentences compared to similar crimes are 25% longer than usual .It's great that judges have finally seen sense but i will be watching the Tyne /Wear derby closely tomorrow and if any gangs of supporters cause trouble then i expect the same harsh treatment as the rioters got

[nomadking]

There is a maximum sentence that they can impose. Therefore anything that is within that limit must by definition be acceptable. The maximum is not meant to only apply in instances of 50 crimes or more, it can apply for a single offence.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

There is a maximum sentence that they can impose. Therefore anything that is within that limit must by definition be acceptable. The maximum is not meant to only apply in instances of 50 crimes or more, it can apply for a single offence.

By that reasoning, no punishment is acceptable for offences where there is no minimum penalty, so stop moaning about people getting off too lightly.

[slowcoach]

Seeing this news report LINK reminded me of the time when I was just a kid, we found an old piano, each key had a lead weight at the far end of each key to return the key up to it's normal position after being pressed, after removing the lead weights we wondered what we could use them for.
Now, as there was not much money about for toys we had to use our ingenuity and imagination more than today's children, anyway, some houses were being knocked down so it only took a moment to find some old pipe and quickly turn it into a gun. I won't go into detail but suffice to say we had a great time firing those lead weights out of the pipe, shooting them right over the houses, luckily the pipe never exploded.
The things we used to get up to....

I had a fine old time with improvised explosive devices when I was (much) younger ... it would be a recipe for being tracked down and jailed for a long time these days. Times change.