![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
2 years in jail for London riots driver
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
Caporegime
[FnG]magnolia;22002071 said:I learned two things today. Thank you
The form is filled in after conviction prior to sentencing and the probation service will recommend to the judge/court a repayment plan for the fine based on that.
That's AFAIK anyway.
Soldato
Agreed.
Soldato
A few months in the clink should hopefully give her time to realise how much suffering people like her caused during those terrible riots.
I'm all for "sticking it to the man", but they should find other ways of doing it rather than acting like a bunch of entitled brats ******* on their own doorsteps.
I'm all for "sticking it to the man", but they should find other ways of doing it rather than acting like a bunch of entitled brats ******* on their own doorsteps.
Soldato
The girl may not have been a looter, but she facilitated multiple lootings by ferrying them around. I consider that a worse crime than the lootings.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
On B, since when, its for both but punishment first.
A large portion of murders are done spur of the moment, things like coming across a wife cheating on you. Most of those situations are also very unlikely to happen again, so just let them all off.... no that has never been the case.
Jail is about punishment for crimes done, and the idea is to help rehabilitate people during their sentence to prevent them reoffending.
As others though, setting an example punishment is horrifically unfair and completely unjust.
The fact that based on a bit of media attention we pass laws because certain cases get more public attention is a joke, the fact that some cases get made an example because the case is in the public's eye.
A peado who rapes some kid in some town no one cares about, that the press don't latch on to, that no one knows about should get the same punishment as a peado who rapes a kid of a prominant politician in London that is in the papers every day(both should get severe punishment).
Another situation is, several hundred people go to jail with say a 3 year term for midlevel drug dealing, and a few years later the same crime suddenly starts getting 10 year sentences because some politician decided to make drug crime their platform for getting elected, while ignoring worse types of crime, and that will normally happen off some big publicised case before an election.
It really shouldn't be hard to come up with an appropriate scale of punishment, now, that stays the same and makes sense. Rape/murder at the top of the scale, taking drugs the bottom of the scale, dealing large amounts of drugs somewhere in the middle, etc, etc.
Should she get punished and go to jail, yes, she knew exactly what she was doing, but ultimately she drove a car, and they weren't knocking off banks at gun point, two years sounds insane compared to violent crimes and many worse crimes getting the same or less punishment.
My query is whether she was really under duress or not - its easy to take a self righteous stance and say she should have told them she didn't want to get involved when your not in the situation yourself. On the other hand she might have been trying to be "in with the crowd", etc. and deserves some kind of punishment.
Yep - she's from a, supposedly, good home and quite frankly should have known better... Not that others in the riots were unaware of their own wrong doing but someone like her should have even less motivation to go out thieving etc...
Also, just a minor point, she's not an 'activist' - not sure if that stems from some commentators confusing 'rioters' with 'protestors' during the media coverage.....
Soldato
Some vague semblance of consistency in sentencing would be nice...
- Drive someone else around to cause criminal damage: 2 years in prison.
- Smash a stolen car into an occupied building at 60 mph: Suspended sentence [link].
In these two cases neither party shows any real likelihood of offending again, but the degree of media attention requires one to be punished more strongly. "Example" punishments don't sit well with me. There should be a consistent punishment for all, not a punishment based on the amount of exposure a story gets.
I'm not saying that either one of the sentences above is too harsh or too lenient, but I wish there was some kind of consistency in the punishments that are handed out. Plenty of brutal assaults and other despicable crimes end in less than a two year sentence.
- Drive someone else around to cause criminal damage: 2 years in prison.
- Smash a stolen car into an occupied building at 60 mph: Suspended sentence [link].
In these two cases neither party shows any real likelihood of offending again, but the degree of media attention requires one to be punished more strongly. "Example" punishments don't sit well with me. There should be a consistent punishment for all, not a punishment based on the amount of exposure a story gets.
I'm not saying that either one of the sentences above is too harsh or too lenient, but I wish there was some kind of consistency in the punishments that are handed out. Plenty of brutal assaults and other despicable crimes end in less than a two year sentence.
Eh? Why would you think she wont break the law again? That's pure speculation.
Crime was committed, she got punished for it. End of story
Consistency of punishments, perhaps there is one and it's just the lack of public information that causes the public to mis-understand the cases. We only ever get a snapshot and never the full picture. Perhaps if the full picture was given we'd see consistency. (I'm speculating this of course)
what a year for being a get away driver for multiple crimes and when finally stopped by the police deciding to try and run them over?
seems a tad light in all honesty.
Man of Honour
Two years. And the people actually carrying out the crimes that she was abetting only got half her sentence. When was the last time the getaway driver for robbers got more than the robbers themselves? No, it was set as an example, something which judges are not supposed to do. If she decides to appeal I would expect to see a substantial reduction. I should also point out that "driving a car at a police officer" covers a multitude of sins: how fast? Did she stop? How far away? And to point out the obvious: if she ran over and killed someone, but was sober, legal and not driving dangerously or carelessly, then she would get less than two years.
M
Soldato
There would soon be rioting up there once there was no one in London earning ****loads of tax to pay for all your dole money.
so if she did nothing wrong and simply had an accident she wouldn't get prison like if she willingly committed several crimes?
You don't ****ing say.
Soldato
Are you sure?
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18159830
They are looking at changing this in Scotland to mirror E&W
Soldato
According to the news, she stopped at a petrol station to get fuel so she could have escaped or asked for help. She obviously didn't which was why the judge deemed her to be guilty.