CB Saint Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 The appeals are not going to be spurious though, are they? The sentences are political. Fair enough, if you've done wrong, you've done wrong and you should be punished within the existing sentencing rules. If they want to change the sentencing rules, fair play - but that's another debate and it should go through the proper channels. What's really amusing is that this is the same Government who were advocating a 50% reduction in sentences if the defendants were good enough to spare them the cost of a jury trial. Hang on, the courts are still sentencing within the guidelines, they are just at the higher end on the scale at the moment. Nothings has changed in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 (edited) Might I suggest then, that prison life should become more spartan and less of a burden on the Chancellor's wallet. Wade, a serious question and not being flippant here - Have you ever experienced prison first hand in any capacity? I have (as a volunteer working with prisoners at HMP Winchester & HMP Kingston) and the experience for the overwhelming majority is a world away from the Daily Mail version of plasma screens, mobiles, playing pool and chilling out. It is a somewhat sad, depressing, mind numbing and spartan existence (some might say that's how it should be, but that's a different argument). And with it costing £40,000+ a year just to house prisoners (that's even before we count the cost of the crimes themselves) I think mickn's thoughts on prevention, re-education and rehabilitation are a route that I would prefer to follow. Edited 18 August, 2011 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Hang on, the courts are still sentencing within the guidelines, they are just at the higher end on the scale at the moment. Nothings has changed in that respect. But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. So, your answer is to give those two (gang leaders) a lighter sentence, well my answer is to force weak and feeble judges to give stiffer sentences. Were we not all disillusioned when a weak judge Judy let Poopey off, the first time in court. We need more deterrent imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Anyone involved should do time. This will teach the scrotes a lesson. This. I think there should be a fixed minimum sentence for all those involved in the riots, regardless of how much they stole/destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. I was abroad at the time of the riots, so missed a lot of the coverage. The punishments do seem to be harsh and whilst I am all for harsh sentances, they should be for 365 days of the year and not just because the media and politicans demand them. Had these sort of sentances been handed out for years and years, perhaps our young people might have thought twice about riotting, perhaps they would think twice before committing the anti social crimes that blight some of our neighbourhoods. These sentances are just a token jesture to the hard working honest people of this country, 6 months down the line we will be back to ASBO's and cautions as if the riots never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 So, your answer is to give those two (gang leaders) a lighter sentence, well my answer is to force weak and feeble judges to give stiffer sentences. Were we not all disillusioned when a weak judge Judy let Poopey off, the first time in court. We need more deterrent imo. Luckily no one in their right mind would let you anywhere near devising an actual sentencing policy. Deterrence is one thing;proportionality another, Without the latter, the legal system loses some of its legitimacy, and that's damaging for all of us. This is going to appeal. My prediction is eighteen months max. At the moment, we have a situation where actual, and quite violent looters are getting lighter sentences than these two wannabes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 This. I think there should be a fixed minimum sentence for all those involved in the riots, regardless of how much they stole/destroyed. Fixed minimum sentences are considered a bad idea for a good reason. Crime does not happen in a vacuum, and it is a crucial part of a court's function - and of the justice system as a whole - to administer justice in a balanced way. Hearing the evidence - including that for the defence - and taking it all into account is what defines justice in a just society. This will mean that from time to time courts will get it wrong - or sometimes are perceived to have done by people who haven't sat in on the court case. Minimum and fixed sentencing are not compatible with a healthy, democratic state - it's much more likely to be found in (and a crucial part of) military dictatorships. However diminished we are a country, we are not that banal - but banal enough, evidently, for some judges to pay too much attention to craven politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. Totally agree. Quadruple the sentence for all those examples above so that the 4 years for "pretending to incite a riot" is fairer. We must all stop agreeing like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Fixed minimum sentences are considered a bad idea for a good reason. Crime does not happen in a vacuum, and it is a crucial part of a court's function - and of the justice system as a whole - to administer justice in a balanced way. Hearing the evidence - including that for the defence - and taking it all into account is what defines justice in a just society. This will mean that from time to time courts will get it wrong - or sometimes are perceived to have done by people who haven't sat in on the court case. Minimum and fixed sentencing are not compatible with a healthy, democratic state - it's much more likely to be found in (and a crucial part of) military dictatorships. However diminished we are a country, we are not that banal - but banal enough, evidently, for some judges to pay too much attention to craven politicians. Perhaps a fixed sentence is too far, but more than just the evidence of the case needs to be taken into account when deciding upon the punishment dished out - what it's going to take to deter the offender from repeating his offence, for one thing. It's widely accepted that people aren't afraid of the law anymore, so things need to be made more severe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Perhaps a fixed sentence is too far, but more than just the evidence of the case needs to be taken into account when deciding upon the punishment dished out - what it's going to take to deter the offender from repeating his offence, for one thing. It's widely accepted that people aren't afraid of the law anymore, so things need to be made more severe. Past offences and prison terms ARE taken into account when sentencing. As for people being 'afraid', I think that's too broad. Hardened criminals are by definition recidivists. Looters on the streets of Britain's cities were clearly a mix though - some were burglars and violent thugs too tempted by the opportunity the 'hide' in the crowd and do what they'd normally do; and civically-challenged first-timers who went with the crowd and thought it was all a flash mob. Wouldn't you agree that those are two categories of offender, likely to respond quite differently to the penalties handed down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Totally agree. Quadruple the sentence for all those examples above so that the 4 years for "pretending to incite a riot" is fairer. We must all stop agreeing like this. Would you be the same plaint-facts-denying, train-commuting trousers who nonetheless somehow denies that train fares have gone up by substantially more than the rate of inflation every single year since at least 1998? Your stock is going the same way as the FTSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. The sentencing does look excessive when you compare with these other crimes, however the question I would ask is are the sentences for the other crimes appropriate or in fact too lenient. The sentencing for the facebook two does appear to be over the top, however I still think a custodial sentence is appropriate for inciting a riot, the fact it didn't take place just means they are p1sspoor rabble rousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 The sentencing does look excessive when you compare with these other crimes, however the question I would ask is are the sentences for the other crimes appropriate or in fact too lenient. The sentencing for the facebook two does appear to be over the top, however I still think a custodial sentence is appropriate for inciting a riot, the fact it didn't take place just means they are p1sspoor rabble rousers. Well I agree with you that they were 'p1sspoor rabble trousers', and even on appeal, the sentence is likely to be custodial. But four years is, by quite common consent, simply absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Well I agree with you that they were 'p1sspoor rabble trousers', and even on appeal, the sentence is likely to be custodial. But four years is, by quite common consent, simply absurd. Not the common consent on here, quite the opposite I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Not the common consent on here, quite the opposite I think. I would suggest that if you had a poll asking if folk thought those (Facebook) sentences were too harsh a majority would say yes. Custodial yes, but 4 years, no. If a similar poll asked it the sentences dished out to the rioters were too harsh I'd suggest the majority would say no, they deserve what they get. My issue with the sentencing is that it appears to lack consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 I'm always right so you should do it more often. Ha. This is a one off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Not the common consent on here, quite the opposite I think. Depressingly true. Fortunately, I don't think the majority of Saints fans are quite the swivel-eyed right-wing loons we have on 'here'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Wade, a serious question and not being flippant here - Have you ever experienced prison first hand in any capacity? I have (as a volunteer working with prisoners at HMP Winchester & HMP Kingston) and the experience for the overwhelming majority is a world away from the Daily Mail version of plasma screens, mobiles, playing pool and chilling out. It is a somewhat sad, depressing, mind numbing and spartan existence (some might say that's how it should be, but that's a different argument). And with it costing £40,000+ a year just to house prisoners (that's even before we count the cost of the crimes themselves) I think mickn's thoughts on prevention, re-education and rehabilitation are a route that I would prefer to follow. I know one or two that have done time, and I also know a couple of prison officers. I haven't any first hand experience of these institutions, but my opinions are based on theirs. I wouldn't argue about rehabilitation, but it means that the prisoner wants to rehabilitate. There are schemes for them in place, but the success of them are quite low. So, make prison a deterrent. Make it hard work. It may make the repeat offenders actually want to rehabilitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 I know one or two that have done time, and I also know a couple of prison officers. I haven't any first hand experience of these institutions, but my opinions are based on theirs. I wouldn't argue about rehabilitation, but it means that the prisoner wants to rehabilitate. There are schemes for them in place, but the success of them are quite low. So, make prison a deterrent. Make it hard work. It may make the repeat offenders actually want to rehabilitate. I think you've missed um's point - that it already IS designedly a deterrent, but the rates of recidivism are higher for custodial sentences than for non-custodial ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 I know one or two that have done time, and I also know a couple of prison officers. I haven't any first hand experience of these institutions, but my opinions are based on theirs. I wouldn't argue about rehabilitation, but it means that the prisoner wants to rehabilitate. There are schemes for them in place, but the success of them are quite low. So, make prison a deterrent. Make it hard work. It may make the repeat offenders actually want to rehabilitate. I do think a lot of prisoners should be put to work while in prison. Some sort of manual job, and not just a token job; something that contributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Depressingly true. Fortunately, I don't think the majority of Saints fans are quite the swivel-eyed right-wing loons we have on 'here'. I think their sentences are fair enough, and I'm not a right-wing loon. I'm not even right-wing. I think that comparitively, their sentences look harsh, but I think paedos and rapists should get at least 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Here is a brilliant idea for a community project to repair broken britain. 11 mins 40. http://www.gbc.gi/television/tv-player.php?programme=475&episode=3652 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 I think you've missed um's point - that it already IS designedly a deterrent, but the rates of recidivism are higher for custodial sentences than for non-custodial ones. Some people will continue to look for criminal ways to make money because they don't want to work. So while they are habitual criminals, nothing will change them. Make them graft in prison. Others are 'institutionalised' to prison life and have low self-worth. Make them graft in prison, it might give them more confidence and self-esteem. I believe prison should be looked on as a punishment first. Rehabilitation should be the job of the parole service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Some people will continue to look for criminal ways to make money because they don't want to work. So while they are habitual criminals, nothing will change them. Make them graft in prison. Others are 'institutionalised' to prison life and have low self-worth. Make them graft in prison, it might give them more confidence and self-esteem. I believe prison should be looked on as a punishment first. Rehabilitation should be the job of the parole service. Again, such is the state of the prison service that, best intentions aside, that is exactly what happens already! Most inmates spend 23 hours staring at the wall. Functioning rehab is all but non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 Would you be the same plaint-facts-denying, train-commuting trousers who nonetheless somehow denies that train fares have gone up by substantially more than the rate of inflation every single year since at least 1998? Depends what made up words you're putting in my mouth this week. Sigh. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 They just showed a police chase on Sky, car chased by rozzers for ages, rammed police cars and other traffic, went wrong way up motorway almost causing pile up, got out and rucked with coppers - 16 months inside. Make a stupid post on facebook about riots - 4 years. Justice like that is not going to help anyone, it will give the moronic rioters more reasons to feel picked on and alienated. The kid who's gonna spend the next 4 years getting butt-raped might as well just right his life off. He will probably turn into a hardened crim which will help no one. We all want the idiots punished but kneejerk sentencing encouraged by hypocritical MPs is retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 They just showed a police chase on Sky, car chased by rozzers for ages, rammed police cars and other traffic, went wrong way up motorway almost causing pile up, got out and rucked with coppers - 16 months inside. Make a stupid post on facebook about riots - 4 years. Justice like that is not going to help anyone, it will give the moronic rioters more reasons to feel picked on and alienated. The kid who's gonna spend the next 4 years getting butt-raped might as well just right his life off. He will probably turn into a hardened crim which will help no one. We all want the idiots punished but kneejerk sentencing encouraged by hypocritical MPs is retarded. They won't do anywhere near 4 years. They will appeal it down to a few months. The judges are (IMHO) simply starting as high as they can (within existing guidelines) as a short term scare tactic to warn off other halfwits with similar ideas during the holiday period, in the full knowledge that it will end up much lower after appeal. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 They won't do anywhere near 4 years. They will appeal it down to a few months. The judges are (IMHO) simply starting as high as they can (within existing guidelines) as a short term scare tactic to others during the holiday period, in the full knowledge that it will end up much lower after appeal. Maybe. So you agree the sentence is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 They won't do anywhere near 4 years. They will appeal it down to a few months. The judges are (IMHO) simply starting as high as they can (within existing guidelines) as a short term scare tactic to warn off other halfwits with similar ideas during the holiday period, in the full knowledge that it will end up much lower after appeal. Maybe. No chance of it being reduced from 4 years to a few months and judges seriously hate having the sentences appealed against. They may well take a year off which moves it from a 2/3 served to a 1/2 served sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 The problem here is that the government is going outside of normal law regulations and trying to set an example. The only thing they're doing with these ridiculous sentences is making people side with the rioters and looters! 4 years for 'incitement' is farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 So you agree the sentence is silly. No. On the contrary - it was very clever. Trying to incite a riot on Facebook. Now, that was silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 No. On the contrary - it was very clever. Trying to incite a riot on Facebook. Now, that was silly. I'm looking forward to your fare increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 The problem here is that the government is going outside of normal law regulations and trying to set an example. The only thing they're doing with these ridiculous sentences is making people side with the rioters and looters! 4 years for 'incitement' is farcical. The Government have nothing to do with the actual sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 But the sentencing, in some cases, is nonsensical. Consider the four-year sentences for the Facebook 'riots' that never happened. A gang of three convicted of kidnapping, stripping and threatening to rape got four years at Kingston Crown Court. Two brothers, who left their friend to die when he was electrocuted as they all stole copper from a substation, got four years. A nurse caught with some of the worse child-porn images ever seen by police experts got four years and five months. A knife-wielding intruder who beat up and robbed a household of students in Dundee got four years and eight months. And so on and so on. As Gilbert and Sullivan famously said (or sang): let the punishment fit the crime. or perhaps a case for more stringent sentencing for kidnap, theft, possesion of child porn etc...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 or perhaps a case for more stringent sentencing for kidnap, theft, possesion of child porn etc...? You're the umptenth poster to tell him this, but he's not listening, it appears he's in favour of light sentences, whereas everyone I know and speak to, wishes for tougher sentences across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 The problem here is that the government is going outside of normal law regulations and trying to set an example. The only thing they're doing with these ridiculous sentences is making people side with the rioters and looters! 4 years for 'incitement' is farcical. They may have urged tougher sentences but it is not outside "normal law regulations" just sentencing within the bands the law allows. Considering the outcome to the riots that actually happened 4 years for incitment to riot seems about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 People of Saintweb - I urge you not to riot in Southampton tonight outside MacDonalds at 10pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 August, 2011 Share Posted 18 August, 2011 I'm looking forward to your fare increase. You and me both. Anything that keeps the riff raff away from my lovely new, clean and reliable trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 Again, such is the state of the prison service that, best intentions aside, that is exactly what happens already! Most inmates spend 23 hours staring at the wall. Functioning rehab is all but non-existent. They should work for at least 8 of those 23 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 You and me both. Anything that keeps the riff raff away from my lovely new, clean and reliable trains. The riff-raff, as you call them, left ages ago - hadn't you noticed? Commuting has long been a strictly relatively wealthy middle-class affair. It's what keeps commuters out of touch on issues like sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 The riff-raff, as you call them, left ages ago - hadn't you noticed? It's difficult to tell from the tinted-window comfort of the first class compartment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 It's difficult to tell from the tinted-window comfort of the first class compartment. Yes, but commuting at all by train is now exclusively the privilege of the quite wealthy. If you're low-paid and in London you have to be in London. Which means you end up, often, at the bottom of the housing pile - and that, in london, is something you definitely want to avoid. The sink estates around the inner perimeter of London are full of people in this situation. So maybe if the wealthy commuters like you had campaigned for fares not to be so high, the offspring of those on these estates might have had happier lives in the burbs. Therefore, you are responsible for the looters. Correct n'est pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 For the cost of sending just 2 young men to jail for 4 years for setting up a facebook group that didn't cause a riot, you could employ 4 youth workers for 4 years working with up to 200 of the most alienated young people per year (800 young people in 4 yrs) or pay for a full time youth advice service in 8 large secondary schools (benefitting around 10,000 young people) for a year or you could employ 24 young people on £15,000 for a year at a time when youth unemployment has reached over 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 For the cost of sending just 2 young men to jail for 4 years for setting up a facebook group that didn't cause a riot, you could employ 4 youth workers for 4 years working with up to 200 of the most alienated young people per year (800 young people in 4 yrs) or pay for a full time youth advice service in 8 large secondary schools (benefitting around 10,000 young people) for a year or you could employ 24 young people on £15,000 for a year at a time when youth unemployment has reached over 20%. So, you're advocating, that there be no punisment for inciting people to riot. Tell me, would you be prepared to incite a riot if a) there was no punisment or b) you go to jail for four years, I suspect if it were b), you'd have a good think about it. Over 80% of people surveyed in a yougov survey, think the sentencing policy is either right, or not harsh enough. It's not these sentences that are at fault, it's all the light ones being given out for other crimes that are wrong. What deterent do you think stopped me getting into trouble in my youth, I'll answer for you, Borstal and prison. Nar days, you wear it like a badge of honor. An old saying, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 So, you're advocating, that there be no punisment for inciting people to riot. Tell me, would you be prepared to incite a riot if a) there was no punisment or b) you go to jail for four years, I suspect if it were b), you'd have a good think about it. Over 80% of people surveyed in a yougov survey, think the sentencing policy is either right, or not harsh enough. It's not these sentences that are at fault, it's all the light ones being given out for other crimes that are wrong. What deterent do you think stopped me getting into trouble in my youth, I'll answer for you, Borstal and prison. Nar days, you wear it like a badge of honor. An old saying, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I take it you have never broken the law in your youth/adult life? made mistakes? wrong decisions? influenced by others? peer pressure from mates? done stupid things? messed around as a kid, shop lifting? graffiti, vandalism, nicking apples, jumping in hedges, banging on old peoples doors and running away, throwing stones, playing football against people's walls, riding bike without lights, blasting out loud music in public areas, underage drinking, smoking in no smoking areas, fighting kids from other areas....... etc etc all part of growing up and if you did get caught the local copper would have a word/warning etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 I take it you have never broken the law in your youth/adult life? made mistakes? wrong decisions? influenced by others? peer pressure from mates? done stupid things? messed around as a kid, shop lifting? graffiti, vandalism, nicking apples, jumping in hedges, banging on old peoples doors and running away, throwing stones, playing football against people's walls, riding bike without lights, blasting out loud music in public areas, underage drinking, smoking in no smoking areas, fighting kids from other areas....... etc etc all part of growing up and if you did get caught the local copper would have a word/warning etc. All of that, but as I said, the deterent of Borstal/prison, plus corporal punishment at School, our fathers wrath etc, kept us in check. Nar days, there is no such fear, prison is seen as soft, and for many, as a badge of achievment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 So, you're advocating, that there be no punisment for inciting people to riot. Tell me, would you be prepared to incite a riot if a) there was no punisment or b) you go to jail for four years, I suspect if it were b), you'd have a good think about it. Over 80% of people surveyed in a yougov survey, think the sentencing policy is either right, or not harsh enough. It's not these sentences that are at fault, it's all the light ones being given out for other crimes that are wrong. What deterent do you think stopped me getting into trouble in my youth, I'll answer for you, Borstal and prison. Nar days, you wear it like a badge of honor. An old saying, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Here is a question for you, what really stops people rioting, stealing etc, is it a) your conscience and knowing its wrong or b) the thought of getting caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 Here is a question for you, what really stops people rioting, stealing etc, is it a) your conscience and knowing its wrong or b) the thought of getting caught? Both, now I'm in my dotage!. In my youth it was knowing right from wrong, but in some cases, pushing those boundrys. I have the conscience, and even now, the thought of prison terrifies me, but my son, nah, he done time standing on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 And so it begins... The first successful appeal against an admittedly ridiculous sentence. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/19/riots-mother-looted-shorts-freed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now