Riots

compare that sentence to the one of the rioter who set fire to the furniture store he got 11 1/2 years

[Osem]

There's rather too much of this senseless and highly aggressive 'lashing out' by thugs like this young moron. All too often it's aimed at weak, elderly or otherwise vulnerable people who it must be obvious are at risk of serious injury if not death. If the courts can set an example by giving 11 years for arson with no deaths or injuries, why on earth can't they send a message to the thugs that if you behave in this way and cause serious harm, the fact that you didn't think through what might result is not a mitigating factor.

Originally Posted by Osem

There's rather too much of this senseless and highly aggressive 'lashing out' by thugs like this young moron. All too often it's aimed at weak, elderly or otherwise vulnerable people who it must be obvious are at risk of serious injury if not death. If the courts can set an example by giving 11 years for arson with no deaths or injuries, why on earth can't they send a message to the thugs that if you behave in this way and cause serious harm, the fact that you didn't think through what might result is not a mitigating factor.

Exactly ,as far as i am concerned the intent to hurt/injure was there so this should have been treated far more seriously

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

compare that sentence to the one of the rioter who set fire to the furniture store he got 11 1/2 years

I think it may also reflect that the arsonist was 33, this lad is 17. That obviously doesn't make what he did right, but I can understand the judge viewing youthfulness a bit of a mitigating factor.

Originally Posted by danielf

I think it may also reflect that the arsonist was 33, this lad is 17. That obviously doesn't make what he did right, but I can understand the judge viewing youthfulness a bit of a mitigating factor.

I know what you are saying but i don't buy that .The youth was 16 at the time of the crime but was still old enough to be tried as an adult .Even a 15yr sentence would mean he would be out in about 7yrs max and he would still be in his early 20's .The way i see it is that a harsher sentence when young would be more of a deterent to future crimes he may commit than being lenient because of his age

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I know what you are saying but i don't buy that .The youth was 16 at the time of the crime but was still old enough to be tried as an adult .Even a 15yr sentence would mean he would be out in about 7yrs max and he would still be in his early 20's .The way i see it is that a harsher sentence when young would be more of a deterent to future crimes he may commit than being lenient because of his age

Well, the way I see it is that a prison sentence is clearly in order, but you also have to wonder about this kid's chances of turning his life around after he gets out of jail. I don't think there is much of a difference between an 8 and 12 years (nominal) sentence in terms of deterrent for future crimes. I suspect the likelihood of his re-offending is more likely to be determined by his ability to make something of his life when he gets out, and I don't think that will be positively affected by putting him away for longer.

Originally Posted by danielf

Well, the way I see it is that a prison sentence is clearly in order, but you also have to wonder about this kid's chances of turning his life around after he gets out of jail. I don't think there is much of a difference between an 8 and 12 years (nominal) sentence in terms of deterrent for future crimes. I suspect the likelihood of his re-offending is more likely to be determined by his ability to make something of his life when he gets out, and I don't think that will be positively affected by putting him away for longer.

That's one way of looking at things ,the other is that if he doesn't turn things around ,which lets face it is highly probable ,then he will be under the impression that leniency is the norm and will not be deterred from any future criminal activity

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's one way of looking at things ,the other is that if he doesn't turn things around ,which lets face it is highly probable ,then he will be under the impression that leniency is the norm and will not be deterred from any future criminal activity

I suspect we're going to agree to disagree on this one

Seriously, I can see your point, but I just don't believe putting young kids in an environment with other offenders is doing much for their future prospects. You say a shorter spell is likely to make him think leniency is the norm. I say that by the time he gets out he'll have spent 20% of his life in prison. I wonder how many tricks he'll pick up inside. I really can't see much point in putting him away much longer, as it will only decrease the chances of him turning things around.

Originally Posted by danielf

I suspect we're going to agree to disagree on this one

Seriously, I can see your point, but I just don't believe putting young kids in an environment with other offenders is doing much for their future prospects. You say a shorter spell is likely to make him think leniency is the norm. I say that by the time he gets out he'll have spent 20% of his life in prison. I wonder how many tricks he'll pick up inside. I really can't see much point in putting him away much longer, as it will only decrease the chances of him turning things around.

Normally i would agree with you on this but in this case i wonder how much of a young kid he really is (in terms of experience) and how many tricks he has to learn .

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:28 ----------

I also wondr how much of a influence the victim impact statement had on the judges sentence ,the victims family seemed quite forgiving

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Normally i would agree with you on this but in this case i wonder how much of a young kid he really is (in terms of experience) and how many tricks he has to learn .

Neither you (presumably) or I know the kid. I'm sure the judge will have had access to more info.

I also wonder how much of a influence the victim impact statement had on the judges sentence ,the victims family seemed quite forgiving

To be honest, I don't think victim impact statements should have any bearing on sentencing. They have their place in allowing the victim to be heard in the trial, but that's about it in my opinion. Sentencing should be done on the basis of facts (which includes impact on society), not victim perception.

Originally Posted by danielf

Neither you (presumably) or I know the kid. I'm sure the judge will have had access to more info.

.

very true ,It is quite easy for us to sit in judgment without all the facts

To be honest, I don't think victim impact statements should have any bearing on sentencing. They have their place in allowing the victim to be heard in the trial, but that's about it in my opinion. Sentencing should be done on the basis of facts (which includes impact on society), not victim perception.

Quite agree with that

[thenry]

was there a plead gulity agreement?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by thenry

was there a plead gulity agreement?

Do we have these in the UK?

Originally Posted by thenry

was there a plead gulity agreement?

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said he took into account the teenager's previous guilty pleas to burglary and violent disorder at William Hill, Tesco Express, Blockbuster and Fatboys Thai restaurant on the same night.

Not sure about an agreement but the guilty pleas where taken into concideration .

One thing that does stick in my mind ,mentioned in the judges statement ,is the futility of those riots .I think most of the people who took part where not normally of that kind of mindset ,they may not have been perfect citizens and maybe strayed across the line a little .But so many are now facing ruined careers and ruined lives because of a few hours madness that for the most part ,i think it fair to say was out of character .One good thing the media has done is give high publicity to the trials and sentences which may in itself serve as a deterrent for those not normally predisposed to violence of this nature but live close to egde of criminality

---------- Post added at 00:14 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Do we have these in the UK?

I don't think we do have "plea bargaining" what we do have is leniency for pleading guilty ,which i suspect may have been the case in this instance .How far we take pleading guilty for leniency i don't know ,but where a death is concerned i think it dangerous to allow offenders to plead guilty in exchange for leniency especially if there is strong evidence against them

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I don't think we do have "plea bargaining" what we do have is leniency for pleading guilty ,which i suspect may have been the case in this instance .How far we take pleading guilty for leniency i don't know ,but where a death is concerned i think it dangerous to allow offenders to plead guilty in exchange for leniency especially if there is strong evidence against them

True. But with respect to comparing this case to the arsonist: according to the Beeb the arsonist changed his plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty' after the prosecution presented their case. Surely, that shouldn't qualify for leniency?