[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by gibbsy

Did you think up this line yourself, or did you get it straight out of a Barbara Cartland novel? It's 2012 not 1912.

You may say that but it is still a significant factor. If my wife had criminal convictions it certainly would have negatively impacted - and in some areas - frustrated my career. And notwithstanding direct effect, how many young professionals rely on both partners working in the early days of the relationship? Given that her employment chances will be devasted - especially in the traditional middle class employment spheres - the chances of her marrying a like minded middle class professional is surely reduced.

A rich criminal does not need rehabilitation and therefore should not go to prison because they've made 'a silly mistake'. Then surely that shows that a rich private education counts for nothing because they will still break the law. I think you've been watching too much Upstairs Downstairs.

You are still misrepresenting me. A rich criminal does - repeat does - need rehabilitation. What I am saying is that, in some circumstances which may be concurrent with wealth (e.g. stable family home, non-criminal parents/livign environment, no immediate subsistence concerns, actively engaged in education etc etc), prison may not be the best answer.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You may say that but it is still a significant factor. If my wife had criminal convictions it certainly would have negatively impacted - and in some areas - frustrated my career. And notwithstanding direct effect, how many young professionals rely on both partners working in the early days of the relationship? Given that her employment chances will be devasted - especially in the traditional middle class employment spheres - the chances of her marrying a like minded middle class professional is surely reduced.

You are still misrepresenting me. A rich criminal does - repeat does - need rehabilitation. What I am saying is that, in some circumstances which may be concurrent with wealth (e.g. stable family home, non-criminal parents/livign environment, no immediate subsistence concerns, actively engaged in education etc etc), prison may not be the best answer.

Going out as part of a gang in a vehicle, equipped to commit crime, during a riot, and committing five counts of burglary. Is that a appropriate crime to get a non custodial sentence, would a non custodial sentence be justice. I think it would not.

The punishment has to fit the crime.

I do not care if she gets a middle class job or a middle class husband I am not a member of her family and friends putting her best interests first.

I care if she breaks the law in future. That might be achieved by a prison sentence, since hopefully she will want to avoid going back to prison. Alternatively rehabilition might be best served by simply the fear of prison, a suspended sentence and community service restitution, in theory facing and changing her criminal behaviour.

But for a non custodial sentence to be considered it has to be appropriate for the crime. It is crucial justice is seen to be done to retain public confidence in the system and have a system that deters would be criminals.

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You are still misrepresenting me. A rich criminal does - repeat does - need rehabilitation. What I am saying is that, in some circumstances which may be concurrent with wealth (e.g. stable family home, non-criminal parents/livign environment, no immediate subsistence concerns, actively engaged in education etc etc), prison may not be the best answer.

That's it then. No more prison for rich criminals, it's obviously no good for them, and will harm their future marriage chances - they might end marrying a working class person, for Gods sake !!

Can't have that, community sentences all round for the wealthy please

[kav]

Originally Posted by Dave

Rioter, suck it up. I'm sure she thought it was great fun at the time, now she's paying for it. Zero sympathy from me.

Originally Posted by Desmo

If she doesn't receive the same punishment as others, including being sent to prison if that is deemed correct, it just goes to further highlight a problem many of the rioters saw in the first place....a them and us situation. All the lower classes will see is that if you're part of the "them", you get let off lightly. In the eyes of the law, everyone should be equal.

Well said both.

[la gran siete]

she has mental health problems and attempted suicide on a number of occasions before the riots, therefore regular prison simply would not be the right place for her.If she is to receive a custodial sentence then it should be the appropriate environment with proper care facilities

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

she has mental health problems and attempted suicide on a number of occasions before the riots, therefore regular prison simply would not be the right place for her.If she is to receive a custodial sentence then it should be the appropriate environment with proper care facilities

Oh, why didn't you say so ? Well in that case, let her off with a warning, we can't go upsetting her by putting her in a nasty prison now, can we .

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

Oh, why didn't you say so ? Well in that case, let her off with a warning, we can't go upsetting her by putting her in a nasty prison now, can we .

horses for courses

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

horses for courses

Prison for villains.

Of ANY background.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

she has mental health problems and attempted suicide on a number of occasions before the riots, therefore regular prison simply would not be the right place for her.If she is to receive a custodial sentence then it should be the appropriate environment with proper care facilities

She does have a history of self harm. Her boyfriend did leave her. She was a out patient at a psychiatric hospital after a failed suicide attempt. But the impact of a prison sentence on some ones mental health is only a consideration in if the person should have a non-custodial or custodial sentence in Cusp cases.


If she is likely to self harm in prison and attempt suicide then adequate measures need to be taken to fulfil the duty of care during her detention. If they can not be taken in a prison environment then another detention environment like a secure mental health unit. But her liberty should be removed, the sentence should be custodial.


At trial she claimed or claimed by her defence team was virtually every mitigating and culpability lowering factor in the CPS guidelines on burglary.

(mental disorder)
A history of self harm since the age of 14. She claims after her boyfriend left her, her mental health deteriorated, that she made six suicide attempts, that she was raped by two men just weeks before the riots.

(acting under duress)
On the night of the riots she was acting under duress, scared, shocked, in fear of being stabbed, relieved to be arrested by the police

(offence committed on impulse)
Had no idea when she drove round to see him that she would have all these people get into the car

(being exploited by others)
Obsessed with him, that he was exploiting her

(minor role in gang)
Her role was minor


The prosecution alleged she was making up the rape story to lend credibility to her claim of duress. That her claim of duress was a pack of lies, that she was not in fear of her friend and his mates, that she was in a sexual relationship with him and had been exchanging flirtatious texts with him that night. That she was a happy and willing participant in the crimes.

She has been found guilty and now must face appropriate punishment. Which in my view is a custodial sentence.

How much the judge buys into all her claimed mitigating factors we will see when sentence if given. But if it is not a custodial sentence I can see some outrage given the sentences handed out to others.

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by dovercat

She does have a history of self harm. Her boyfriend did leave her. She was a out patient at a psychiatric hospital after a failed suicide attempt. But the impact of a prison sentence on some ones mental health is only a consideration in if the person should have a non-custodial or custodial sentence in Cusp cases.


If she is likely to self harm in prison and attempt suicide then adequate measures need to be taken to fulfil the duty of care during her detention. If they can not be taken in a prison environment then another detention environment like a secure mental health unit. But her liberty should be removed, the sentence should be custodial.


At trial she claimed or claimed by her defence team was virtually every mitigating and culpability lowering factor in the CPS guidelines on burglary.

(mental disorder)
A history of self harm since the age of 14. She claims after her boyfriend left her, her mental health deteriorated, that she made six suicide attempts, that she was raped by two men just weeks before the riots.

(acting under duress)
On the night of the riots she was acting under duress, scared, shocked, in fear of being stabbed, relieved to be arrested by the police

(offence committed on impulse)
Had no idea when she drove round to see him that she would have all these people get into the car

(being exploited by others)
Obsessed with him, that he was exploiting her

(minor role in gang)
Her role was minor


The prosecution alleged she was making up the rape story to lend credibility to her claim of duress. That her claim of duress was a pack of lies, that she was not in fear of her friend and his mates, that she was in a sexual relationship with him and had been exchanging flirtatious texts with him that night. That she was a happy and willing participant in the crimes.

She has been found guilty and now must face appropriate punishment. Which in my view is a custodial sentence.

How much the judge buys into all her claimed mitigating factors we will see when sentence if given. But if it is not a custodial sentence I can see some outrage given the sentences handed out to others.

She's just giving it the sob story. Unfortunately, there are some gullible liberals out there who fall for it.

Let's hope the judge isn't one of them, and sees straight through it.

[danny54]

She should get longer as the majority of the others pleaded guilty.

[Sonic67]

Do the crime, do the time.

Lady Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice should be blind.

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

[krish]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

A rich criminal does - repeat does - need rehabilitation. What I am saying is that, in some circumstances which may be concurrent with wealth (e.g. stable family home, non-criminal parents/livign environment, no immediate subsistence concerns, actively engaged in education etc etc), prison may not be the best answer.

And how exactly would returning to all the comforts afforded by the family's affluence be punitive?

She was engaged in destroying others' lives and livelihoods, she can only appreciate the consequences of her actions with her own loss of freedom and lifestyle, and a message has to be sent to the wider population - imho

[phil t]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

maybe completely overhaul the prisons turning then into centres where inmates can learn new skills......

The trouble is, we end up punishing those law abiding citizens who would love to learn new skills and further their life!!!

Crime shouldn’t pay.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by phil t

The trouble is, we end up punishing those law abiding citizens who would love to learn new skills and further their life!!!

Crime shouldn’t pay.

i dont see turning criminals round into decent citizens as punishment for anyone. Quite the reverse

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Do the crime, do the time.

Lady Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice should be blind.

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

Of course, as already discussed earlier in this thread, English law is more complex than that. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, as amended, sets out the aims of sentencing as:
1. Retribution (Punishment of the offenders)
2. Reform and rehabilitation of offenders
3. Reduction of crime through individual or collective deterrence
4. Protection of the public
5. Reparation by offenders to the victims of their crimes
6. Public policy, i.e. is there a public interest in a particularly harsh/lenient sentence

Sentencing tennants 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 can and will all take into account personal circumstances. The latter has most recently (and publically) be seen with the actual gaoling of MPs over the expenses scandal when the tarriff was borderline for a suspended sentence.

[phil t]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i dont see turning criminals round into decent citizens as punishment for anyone. Quite the reverse

It rewards the criminal.

Kids,
can’t afford to do training course XYZ?
No worries, just commit a crime and the government will pay instead.

Why should someone be penalised because they haven’t committed a crime?

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by phil t

It rewards the criminal.

Why should someone be penalised because they haven’t committed a crime?

rubbish! No one is being penalised and no one is being rewarded.I fail to see your logic.There is a punishment level but with that there must be some kind of attempt to reform after all most criminals will one day be released and it would be a complete failure of the system if they come out even more bitter and full of hatred than they were before

[phil t]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

No one is being penalised and no one is being rewarded.I fail to see your logic

Commit crime = learn new skills.

Vs

Don’t commit crime = don’t learn new skills.

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

rubbish! No one is being penalised and no one is being rewarded.I fail to see your logic.There is a punishment level but with that there must be some kind of attempt to reform after all most criminals will one day be released and it would be a complete failure of the system if they come out even more bitter and full of hatred than they were before

So what crime did you do then?

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by phil t

Commit crime = learn new skills.

Vs

Don’t commit crime = don’t learn new skills.

its more a matter of trying to change the mindset of the locked up criminal so he becomes a useful member of society when he is finally released .There is no reward involved as he would be locked up in prison with very limited priviliges anyway.
As for the victims i believe they should receive whatever support is needed to help them overcome the effects of whichever crime they suffered

[Dave]

If we're going to make it personal the thread will be closed.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by dejongj

So what crime did you do then?

no idea what you mean

[phil t]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

There is no reward involved as he would be locked up in prison with very limited priviliges anyway.

The reward is the education received during their stay at HMs pleasure.

It is education that they wouldn’t have received had they not offended, it is education that a non criminal does not receive.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by phil t

The reward is the education received during their stay at HMs pleasure.

It is education that they wouldn’t have received had they not offended, it is education that a non criminal does not receive.

i dont see that as reward at all, more as enlightened positive steps to help ensure he/she becomes a decent law abiding citizen.After all most are released one day and its infinitely preferable that when they are they have more positive attitude to life .There is nothing remotely rewarding about a life behind bars with no access to the priviliges most of us take for granted like, for eg, walking freely in the countryside.Deprivation of freedom is a real punishment but, in my mind, its crucial steps are taken to try and reform the offender.
i recognise its an anomaly with regard to the non offender but they do have opportunities which the offender does not get, including greater job opportunities and training.The rewards only come after the required efforts are made

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by phil t

The reward is the education received during their stay at HMs pleasure.

It is education that they wouldn’t have received had they not offended, it is education that a non criminal does not receive.

Considering the poor literacy and numeracy of many in prison. I expect it is mainly education they should of received. Education that might make them more employable.


But I do not see why society owes ex-offenders any favors. Things like employment programs for ex-offenders that result in them getting reasonably well paid secure jobs. I can see why a law abiding unemployed person would be resentful. Rehabilitation should mean feeling remorse. If they were capable of remorse they would not return to crime, job or no job.

[Sonic67]

@ LGS I'm pretty sure the person in question had privileges, opportunities, education, chances for training etc in the first place. What do you think prison could give her over the chances she has had or could have had?

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

@ LGS I'm pretty sure the person in question had privileges, opportunities, education, chances for training etc in the first place. What do you think prison could give her over the chances she has had or could have had?

although the thread is about her i was referring tp the prison population in general.As for her i dont believe prison is the right option because of her mental health problems amnd because i dont believe she is likel;y to become a repeat offender

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

stupid girl...

I am no fan of prison sentences (they achieve nothing)unless the crime is heinous and the criminal poses an ongoing threat, so i would say a two year community service sentence would be enough provided she also seeks help with her problems.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

setting an example that is far too Victorian for my liking.Community service will do fine as long as she is chastened sufficiently and learns from her mistakes.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

There is nothing that can be said in favour of prisons other than it keeps dangerous people off the streets for a period of time....

if an individual such as this one , is "worsened" as a net result of mixing with hardened criminals on a daily basis.She already ,by her own admission ,mixed with wrong 'uns, do we wish to compound the situation by exposing her to even worse types

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I quite like the idea od sending people like her to a Brat camp in Arizona or Utah where she would be required to lead a very austere life trekking with a heavy pack on her back living in tents and going to group meetings where she could learn the error of her ways.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

It doesnt matter what the social background of the individual is what matters is the character

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I believe everyone deserves a second chance

Originally Posted by la gran siete

As for her i dont believe prison is the right option because of her mental health problems amnd because i dont believe she is likel;y to become a repeat offender

Is not depriving liberty a punishment that maintains public confidence in the justice system and acts as a deterrent to crime.

Do you disagree most with depriving her of her liberty or with prison as the method of achieving that due to her previous mental health problems? Would you view detention in a secure mental health unit as more appropriate, acceptable.


Why do you think she is unlikely to become a repeat offender. You describe her as a "stupid girl" as if she has just made a stupid foolish mistake, to be forgiven. As "mixed with wrong 'uns" as if she is good but came under evil influence. As sending her to a "brat camp" being some thing you think appropriate, as if all she needs is a bit of structure and self discipline. As it being a matter of "character" so presumably you think she is intrinsically of good character.

You seem to view her as a intrinsically good teenager falling into the wrong crowd or as acting out, having made a stupid mistake. To have fallen off the rails, to be forgiven, helped up and on her way in life.

You say it is not a matter of social class but of character. But would you view her character through such rose tinted glasses if she had been another criminal gang member. One with a mediocre academic record, living on a rundown inner city estate, with her law abiding but non working single mum parent.

I consider her a adult with a mind of her own, culpable for her criminal actions and that those criminal actions were serious. That she should suffer the consequences by being punished, and that hopefully she should feel remorse or at least be deterred from future criminal behavior and her sentence act as a deterrent to others.

The punishment you suggest ""two year community service sentence would be enough provided she also seeks help with her problems"

What problems do you mean.
Her mental health problems date back to 14 years old and she has had professional help.
She still apparantly has mental health problems, she met her current alleged boyfriend as a out patient at a psychiatric hospital.
But her relevent current problem according to the prosecution is associating with known criminals, including her boyfriend, and being a happy willing criminal gang member committing crime.

Why should she avoid a custodial sentence, when so many others have not. The major difference seems to be she is from a middle class background. You say you believe everyone should get a second chance. So do you believe all the first time offenders involved in the riot should have been given non-custodial sentences. You say setting an example is Victorian but do you not think there may have been consequences to giving them all non-custodial sentences, public confidence undermined, increased likelihood of future riots - opportunistic looting.

[phil t]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i recognise its an anomaly with regard to the non offender but they do have opportunities which the offender does not get, including greater job opportunities and training.

Which are exactly the same chances the criminal had BEFORE they choose to commit a crime?!!

Do you really believe a non offender is offered all these courses to learn new skills? Surely if all these opportunities are presented there would be no need to turn to crime? I’ve no first hand experience, but many of last years rioters expressed that they did what they did because they could see no future for themselves. Hardly sounds like they had a raft of training being offered to them!