View previous topic | View next topic

Disgruntled yoofs and how to deal with them

Page 17 of 18
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next

839636.  Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:46 pm Reply with quote

rewboss wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
what practical level of support have Wills and Kate given to the riot areas?

Don't know. Could be almost anything, or nothing. I suppose they could afford just to throw a bit of money in local businesses' general direction, and there's a very small chance a bit of it might end up somewhere vaguely useful. And I daresay the authorities will welcome the practical support of a rescue helicopter pilot and a fashion accessory buyer, although exactly what skills they might usefully offer I couldn't offhand say.

What level of support could they give? If they do something, I am sure there will be one corner of society that will call it tokenism and they have no idea what "real" people go through, and if they do nothing I am sure the opposite corner will say they don't care because they're elitist snobs or something of that ilk. Should they even have to do anything? Will a visit from members of the Royal Family solve the grass roots issues that led to these riots being started in the first place? Course not.l

839691.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:17 am Reply with quote

One possible good to come from the aftermath of the rioting is the severity of the sentencing.

People tend not to be stupid, they realise that if they do something then something else will happen. There is a report on the BBC website that begins
"When college student Nicolas Robinson set foot in a Lidl supermarket as he walked home from his girlfriend's house, he probably didn't think his actions would land him behind bars.

But stealing a 3.50 case of bottled water during the riots in Brixton has cost the 23-year-old dearly."

Mr Robinson made the concious decision to steal the water. He didn't think it would cost him his liberty - had he known that he would go to prison, he wouldn't have stole the water. The idea was that the benefit of stealing outweighed what it would cost if he got caught. I doubt he would go out and steal a case of water again.

839726.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:13 pm Reply with quote

How much is it costing taxpayers to keep this bloke behind bars?
I bet it's rather more than 3.50 - is that really the sort of thing we want to be spending money on?

839733.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:28 pm Reply with quote

Well of course, we could always execute everyone who is convicted of riot-related offences - and once we've chopped their heads off, they won't cost us one goddamned penny.

And don't worry about the cost of hiring an executioner, because the entire readership of the Daily Mail would queue up for the chance to pay for the privilege ...

839748.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:50 pm Reply with quote

I thought the idea of a punishment was to make it ot worth the risk to commit a crime hence there are more shoplifters than murderers - the punishment is severe and the chances of getting caught are good making it a no win crime

839756.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:05 pm Reply with quote

Even in countries where there there is the death penalty and physical punishment, people go out and commit crimes.

839759.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:14 pm Reply with quote

They do, but ask yourself what kind of person would steal something worth 3.50 if they thought that a) they would get caught, and b) they would go to jail?
Don't you think that particular criminal is beyond help?

839809.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:05 pm Reply with quote

He needs help, certainly - and that is what prison is supposed to be for.

Mind you, I can't help thinking that six months in jail for the sake of stealing goods to the value of 3.50 is a bit extreme. If magistrates imposed that kind of sentence every time, we'd need to build a thousand new jails - and whence would come the money for that?

Richard Bacon pointed out on television that an MP who was convicted of expenses fraud in the sum of 8,000 received only four months in jail. Which makes it hard to argue against the assertion that it's one rule for them and another for us.

839813.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 pm Reply with quote

As I said before, I think many of the people who joined in were part of a hysteria that took over.

It's not a defence to say someone is guilty or not, they're still guilty, I simply wonder whether this mean they require a tougher sentence than usual?

Are all of us saying we've never done anything wrong?

839833.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:46 am Reply with quote

suze, one thing that is taken into consideration - from what I can gather - is the effect the crime has on the victims. Yes it is only 3.50, but imagine if you had been in Lidl's in Brixton at the time of the offence?

Put yourself in the position that not ten minutes before things kicked off you were speaking to a member of your family who said they were just going to pop down the high road to pick up some milk.

Whilst both examples are in the extreme they aren't impossible situations (yes Lidl's was looted past midnight, but it kicked off in Croydon a lot earlier and the offence could so easily have been there)
The Fraud of a minister had a lasting effect on how many people? I'd bet that if you were to walk down the any street in the UK no one would be able to tell you the names of the ministers involved - even if they were carrying a copy of the Daily Telegraph!

839842.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:04 am Reply with quote

So - a geriatric looter (70) gets away with a warning? Why?

839844.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:13 am Reply with quote

Because he's not a yoof, he's a goof.

839846.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:21 am Reply with quote

Richard Bacon pointed out on television that an MP who was convicted of expenses fraud in the sum of 8,000 received only four months in jail. Which makes it hard to argue against the assertion that it's one rule for them and another for us

That is one way of looking at it.

Another is that the four MPs were not convicted of 'expenses fraud' at all, but of false accounting - and both the inital sentencing and subsequent reductions on appeal are entirely within the CPS guidelines - it's just that your common-or-garden case of false accounting doesn't generate quite the level of public attention as the cases of David Chaytor and chums.

839851.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:09 am Reply with quote

That just raises the question of the fairness of the sentencing guidelines in the first place.

839852.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:19 am Reply with quote

That's fair enough (ho ho)

But it does leave the 'one rule for them...' argument a bit tattered.

But I guess that the problem is that taking each and every offence in isolation, a case can be made along 'lock 'em up/throw away key' lines, especially in the middle of a furore like MPs expenses or the riot aftermath - and sentencing guidelines do have to be formulated rather more dispassionately and objectively than that when taken in the context of all conceivable crimes and the finite resources we have for locking-upping and key-chucking.

Last edited by Neotenic on Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total


Page 17 of 18
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group