After 691 Crimes, Offender is Given Freedom and a New Home

2 views on this - he's been a total eejit in the past, however he may have turned over a new leaf and gets a respectable job and does something useful, something he wouldn't do if he was dealt with badly.

I guess it's just wait and see.
 
Maybe not as bad as it sounds, sounds like it's the first time he's been caught. Although free flat is a joke.

But after admitting 20 burglaries and asking for another 645 offences to be taken into account, he was told that rather than going to jail he was to be relocated to a new town and given a rent-free home to live in with his girlfriend.
Click to expand...


leanent sentence to clear 645 crimes in one go, for labours stat fudging?
 
Last edited:
tsinc80697 said:
err what? How on earth can a judge just say that and let him off with that.
Click to expand...

He didn't quite just let him off, he is under a 12 month supervision order although whether that is sufficient is another matter entirely. I can't speak for the English justice system but in Scotland if the older party had a reasonable belief that the other party was over the legal age of consent then they would not be guilty of a criminal offence (nb this defence only works up to the age of 24). You've also got to question whether society is better served by punishing one young person (or two if they are in a relationship) for having underage sex - 16 happens to be a pretty arbitrary line drawn in the sand, while I'd argue it is generally a fair approximation it doesn't distinguish for individual circumstances.

As for the original post; I've got to wonder how he found time to do anything other than get arrested.
 
I'd have a problem with this if he was older, but he is only 18 and has known nothing but crime since he was 12.

What would sending him to prison accomplish? It would cost much, much more than one month's rent and a deposit, and he would spend what he has left of his youth at the college of crime. This country has enough career criminals as it is; we don't need to breed more by writing off young offenders.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Vital detail left out of the OP. See above post.
Click to expand...

Aye, which changes the outlook of the thing.

I suspect it was a combination of the likely ages at which many of the crimes were committed and his confession of the additional crimes that got the sentence down.
Also not reported but as another possible factor, if he was on drugs whilst commiting the offences it's possible he has cleaned up and that would factor into the sentencing (if the only reason you commit an offence is to fund a drug habit it's actually very counter productive for the judge to send you to prison if you admit the crimes after you've cleaned up*).

It's worth noting that all Judges/Magistrates are under a huge amount of pressure to avoid sending people to jail as the jails are literally full (who could possibly have predicted when the government started making more crimes imprisonable, and sentences longer that the number of jail cells required would increase?)


*As not only does the prison sentence cost a lot of money, but by the time you're out there is a high chance you'll be back on drugs, thus needing to commit further crimes to pay for them.
 
dmpoole said:
Judge Christopher Ball has recently given one of the UK's most prolific offenders a ticket to freedom and a new home, paid for by tax payers, including his victims, because the criminal had 'turned over a new leaf'. Judge Ball is known for leniency.

Bradley Wernham, 18, had been committing crimes since he was 12 and had racked up over £1,000,000 in thefts. Acting without morals, Wernham even stole from churches during his six-year crime spree.

The judge handed down a sentence of nothing, and The Safer Harlow Partnership, a crime reduction body, will pay for a deposit and rent on a new home for Wernham and his girlfriend for a month. After the month, Wernham is expected to get benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Yet-burglar-walks-free--given-new-home.html

Yeah, I know it's the Daily Mail but it looks true.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS:rolleyes:.

iKettles said:
He's getting moved to my town, joy.
Click to expand...

Sorry but unlucky:D.
 
TJM said:
I'd have a problem with this if he was older, but he is only 18 and has known nothing but crime since he was 12.

What would sending him to prison accomplish? It would cost much, much more than one month's rent and a deposit, and he would spend what he has left of his youth at the college of crime. This country has enough career criminals as it is; we don't need to breed more by writing off young offenders.
Click to expand...

because he has done a lot of wrongs and we want to see him punished?

we dont care if he gets rehabilitated, he should be punished and taking into account the volume of crimes, it should be some 40-50 year conviction. maybe more, that would really do the job.

i personalyl would rather pay more taxes to ensure he lives in jail for the rest of his life than pay half as much to know that he is living in a paid for house given a new start, to begin his theft spree again.
 
Nickg said:
because he has done a lot of wrongs and we want to see him punished?

we dont care if he gets rehabilitated, he should be punished and taking into account the volume of crimes, it should be some 40-50 year conviction. maybe more, that would really do the job.

i personalyl would rather pay more taxes to ensure he lives in jail for the rest of his life than pay half as much to know that he is living in a paid for house given a new start, to begin his theft spree again.
Click to expand...

Life in prison for teenage stealing :rolleyes:

Bringin' out my big guns!
 
Article comment said:
The reason why he got this sentence was because he is a supergrass as the judge made clear. He has done a deal with the police under section 74 of the serious organised crime and police act. He has to admit all his previous wrongdoing, give information or evidence against others and in return the police end up footing the bill for his new identity.
Click to expand...

Not as simple as you'd think then...
 
Yes on the face of it this sounds ridiculous but to all those saying 'lock him up for life', how much do you think that will cost the tax payer compared to him getting benefits? Obviously there's more to it than that but its really very expensive to lock people up. If, however unlikely, he has reformed then it will be far cheaper to keep him at home than it ever would be to keep him inside.
 
Unfortunately, going to prison is not the punishment you expect. All that will happen is he spends a few months with good food, watching TV, working out in the gym and learning a load of new tricks and tips from fellow inmates. He will come out and continue committing offences.

Sadly, 'letting him off' and trying to sort his life out is also unacceptable. All the victims demand that this guy is punished for his crimes.

I think there is a real gap in this country for a hard hitting punishment somewhere between prisons and a community sentence. Perhaps a military style boot camp, or maybe sent to work on a farm on a remote scottish island.
 
Chimerical said:
That's not a good argument.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's up to you what choices you make. Or was he not accountable for his actions, in which case why is he allowed out with other members of the general public?

"That's not a good arguement." Great post. I wish I could just type that whenever I disagreed with a point of view. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom