2 years in jail for London riots driver

Moses said:
No, I'm asking you... or anyone else who happens to be reading this thread... as most people seem to agree that it's a fair sentence. They obviously base sentences on the guidelines which exist, but we're discussing whether or not two years is ~fair~ (which, imo, is different to whether or not it was the correct sentence, according to the guidelines... eg. women used to not have the vote... which followed the law, etc... but was that fair?)
Click to expand...

Why would people know why the judge give the woman a 24 month sentance? :/
 
Moses said:
Yes, I'm aware of the fact she won't serve two years (as mentioned in post sixty-two), but that doesn't mean the question's invalid. If people are going to be pedantic, why's seven months actually inside the fair length of sentence, then? Why not a sentence of six months and actually serving two months?
Click to expand...

because she facilitated multiple crimes, personally committed several crimes and apparently tried to run a police officer over.

Also i'm guessing there's the fact it was during a riot which means it has much harsher sentencing guidelines.

Also a longer sentence (although not all served) means that they can bring her back in easily if she does something else which probbaly helps reducing reoffending.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
I know about that, but it complicates the framing of the discussion. We can either compare headline sentences, or how long people will probably serve in reality. If comparing like-for-like, it's fine... when comparing the two it doesn't work. I was attempting to discuss the issue in terms of headline sentences, and I thought that was clear.
Click to expand...

yes i realised as i read on adjusted post above.
 
She will be out in 6 months after daddy has written a letter or apology and increased his party donation by a few extra grand.

I would imagine the complete and utter shame of this has destroyed her anyway. A few months locked away with real hardcore criminals will do a her wonders.
 
Moses said:
Yes, but why isn't a 6 month sentence (a couple of months actually inside, for the pedants) enough for her to realise what she's done, etc? It's not as though she actually hurt anyone/did permanent damage, etc. When does the extra 18 months on the sentence (for the pedants) actually achieve?
Click to expand...

she has got roughly 6 months inside so as far as "punishment" is concered it's the same as what you're asking for.

Now i'm sure you as a lawyer can fill us in on what those extra 18 months released back home actually allow the legal system to do?

Does it let them limit who she has contact with in that time (ie stopping her seeing these people for that time), does it allow a curfew or is it simply a do something wrong in that time and it's straight to jail for the rest of the sentence?


AS any of the three or any combination of them would seem like a good way to reduce re offending, either by removing from the environment that encouraged her to commit crime or by the threat of a more immediate punishment.


/did permanent damage,
Click to expand...

hasn't she? even if the goods were recovered i'd imagine the physical damage to the shop she aided in cost a fair bit to fix.
 
Last edited:
Efour2 said:
Let her rot like the rest.
Click to expand...

How do you want Prisoners to behave when they are released and how do you go about accomplish this?
Letting them rot seems like justice but it isn't good for society. In fact it's probably worse for her and society to have a long sentence, as long sentences do in fact increase reoffending rates.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
No, I'm asking why not have a six month sentence, which would result in her getting out before then, obviously.
Click to expand...

WEl lthe bit below answer why.


Is the previous question linked to this? I'm really not au fait with sentencing, etc, but it's my understanding that people can be released early, but it's under licence, so if they do anything wrong they can go back inside. You have to say where you're going to live, then you have to meet your parole officer, or whatever, at certain times, you can have a curfew, etc.
Click to expand...


That is why the sentence is longer than necessary then moses, for all those things you just posted they all mean it's nto a case of right your back out do whatever, it's "right you're back out we will monitor you for a while you will not see the crowd you fell in with before etc" basically it provides more tools to reduce the risk of re offending.

Rehabilitation doesn't end when you leave prison.


I just think a ~short sharp shock~ would be enough. She knows if she does anything wrong, in the future, she'll get longer inside
Click to expand...


(and the short period inside will put her off that for life, especially considering she was living in relative luxury in her normal life, I would have thought). I'm not sure about stopping people having friends, but I'm sure she'll reassess her friendships, as a result of this. I don't see why a 24 month sentence (with less than that served) would be more effective than a 6 month sentence (with less than that served).
Click to expand...

because it allows 18 more months of monitoring to help reduce re offending.

why don't you ask one of your lecturers as sentences much longer than are actually served seems to be the norm in this country. I'm sure they'll tell you why it's that way.


I meant in terms of affecting a person. DVD players being something you can easily replace, but it being impossible to rectify damage to faces after being glassed, or whatever.
Click to expand...

any of the people she drove around get convicted of assault or arson?




Also it might just be because of the situation as i said before crimes in times like that have higher sentences and the multiple charges of handling stolen goods etc 2 years may be the minimum.
 
RomanNose said:
How do you want Prisoners to behave when they are released and how do you go about accomplish this?
Letting them rot seems like justice but it isn't good for society. In fact it's probably worse for her and society to have a long sentence, as long sentences do in fact increase reoffending rates.
Click to expand...

im not talking about the bigger picture and have nothing to say about it intelligent at the moment.

Like i said before shes probably already pretty aware of what she did being very wrong, her dad will take back her Clio and cut her allowance in half.

We know everyone involved in the riots is getting the book thrown at them, so she should too. If anyone comes out reformed it will be her. I doubt anything she does in life will be harmed by having a criminal record when she ends up working for one of her dads companies. Unlike the 100s of others.

/sorry i have a hangover, first one in years - cant see so good :O
 
The Halk said:
If you're going to make minor points... , she is an 'activist' but she's not an activist. :) I do agree with you though. I don't believe someone living off a trust fund has any valid input into how our society is run, especially when they're going on about inequality etc, that's why I reserve a special level of derision for them :)
Click to expand...

Are you equating the riots/looting with a political protest?
 
Richie said:
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
Click to expand...

Of course I'm sure. You've even posted a link to say I'm right :confused:

The second you start judging people on their past actions is the second police just start arresting people with priors because they look shady, the jury then hears all his priors and more or less instantly decide he is guilty. It's a bad system and Scotland are flipping retarded to even consider it. If a person has many criminal prosecution then it's because he's an idiot so it shouldn't be too hard to prosecute him on facts alone as the person no doubt left a load of evidence. And the criminals that are smart and don't get caught don't have priors anyway.
 
Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monkeymatt said:
She comes from a rich family so she clearly doesn't live near the looters, so how did she get involved with them in the first place? Plus if she was really being forced into doing it then surely she could have driven off while they were looting the shops?

I think the punishment is fair, it shows that even the rich are still accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

Granted I haven't taken too much notice of the details but from what I picked up these were people she had chosen to associate with it wasn't just some random person they'd picked to drive them around under threat of force, it would have been longer term intimidation. Tho I suspect some of it was that she wanted to be "in with that crowd" and be the cool kid and not do something that she considered they'd perceive her negatively for but thats somewhat conjecture based on past experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom