Declining attitude to law and order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nelly said:
Some people just can't be rehabilitated, the prisons are full, so long term sentences are out of the question, so they end up out on the streets to do what they do best, commit crime.

Check this scumbag out >> https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/grimsbys-thieving-queen-crime-racks-4346092

The above has 337 offences since 1989 inc more than 200 for theft or dishonesty, about 11 for burglary and a robbery offence in 2001.

I would give people 5 chances to turn their life around, after a 5-year stint in prison with their 5th time, if they do any further crime - execute.
Click to expand...

If that story is anything to go by, you'd be killing a lot of people who need help with their mental health. At worst, they should be sectioned, cases like that only highlight how useless it is to keep arresting people when there should be social services stepping in to help people. This country is so broken.
 
If you know you are dragging a person behind you in a car traveling at speed and that person dies....how the hell does that result in manslaughter?

You may not have set out to do it but once they started they could have stopped?

No faith in the justice system in this country at all.
 
Nelly said:
Some people just can't be rehabilitated, the prisons are full, so long term sentences are out of the question, so they end up out on the streets to do what they do best, commit crime.

Check this scumbag out >> https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/grimsbys-thieving-queen-crime-racks-4346092

The above has 337 offences since 1989 inc more than 200 for theft or dishonesty, about 11 for burglary and a robbery offence in 2001.

I would give people 5 chances to turn their life around, after a 5-year stint in prison with their 5th time, if they do any further crime - execute.
Click to expand...

If only there was some desolate land on the other side of the world we could send undesirables... :p

FWIW I'm all for a 3 strikes policy, but execution is too far. What the answer is has eluded policy makers since the beginning of civilisation
 
Freakbro said:
I would imagine (and hope) that sentencing will take into account they lied from the outset, the lack of remorse, the involvement of associates in jury intimidation and that it's a death of a police officer to give these guys a high sentence
Click to expand...


Aggravating factors for sentencing will (from what I understand) likely include:
No guilty plea.
No remorse.
In the commission of another crime (I believe that's taken into account)
The person that died was a member of the emergency services (again I believe that's taken into account)
Any prior criminal record.

Those are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

Which means the sentencing will begin at the average for the base offence (no discount for guilty plea).
Then they'll add on up from that.

The only "mitigating" factors I can think of that might be applied could be age of the guilty at the time of the offence, but that's not likely to amount to much given they are and were all adults at that time.

My guess is the sentence will be much closer to the maximum than the minimum, and the judge will recommend that they serve a lot more of it than the normal prior to being considered for any release.
 
Last edited:
Terminal_Boy said:
Make trespass a criminal offence, enforce it with an iron will and the traveller problem is over in 6 months.
Click to expand...
Except that then you get a lot of unintended consequences, unless you suggest they enforce it selectively...

For example if you like fishing, you can easily trespass by walking along the river bank because a lot of that land is privately owned without a public right of way and no visible boundaries* (no fencing, no signs) to show what is public and what is private, let alone what is private but the owners don't mind the odd person using it for some quiet fishing or bird watching, and what is private and the owner doesn't allow it.
You also then run into issues in what is trespass and what is reasonable access - is someone trespassing in an actionable manner if for example they walk up your front path to post something through your letterbox, or at halloween if kids knock.


*Our house for example owns the land to the middle of a water course according to the deeds, but we've never had a fence that went within about 6 foot of the edge of the water, for the simple reason anything that gets put there will collect debris from the water when the stream is higher, or simply get washed away when there is heavy rain (or collect debris then get washed away).
 
I think there's a very healthy decline in deference, not law and order. The illegal activities people in positions of power in the past got away with was far worse. I think we expect our institutions to earn our trust, it's not freely given, and that's a very good thing.
 
Werewolf said:
Except that then you get a lot of unintended consequences, unless you suggest they enforce it selectively...

For example if you like fishing, you can easily trespass by walking along the river bank because a lot of that land is privately owned without a public right of way and no visible boundaries* (no fencing, no signs) to show what is public and what is private, let alone what is private but the owners don't mind the odd person using it for some quiet fishing or bird watching, and what is private and the owner doesn't allow it.
You also then run into issues in what is trespass and what is reasonable access - is someone trespassing in an actionable manner if for example they walk up your front path to post something through your letterbox, or at halloween if kids knock.


*Our house for example owns the land to the middle of a water course according to the deeds, but we've never had a fence that went within about 6 foot of the edge of the water, for the simple reason anything that gets put there will collect debris from the water when the stream is higher, or simply get washed away when there is heavy rain (or collect debris then get washed away).
Click to expand...

I guess there are ways to adapt it but likewise outside work there is a bit of land which technically the general public are trespassing on but lots of people use as a shortcut and no one cares.
 
Werewolf said:
Aggravating factors for sentencing will (from what I understand) likely include:
No guilty plea.
No remorse.
In the commission of another crime (I believe that's taken into account)
The person that died was a member of the emergency services (again I believe that's taken into account)
Any prior criminal record.

Those are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

Which means the sentencing will begin at the average for the base offence (no discount for guilty plea).
Then they'll add on up from that.

The only "mitigating" factors I can think of that might be applied could be age of the guilty at the time of the offence, but that's not likely to amount to much given they are and were all adults at that time.

My guess is the sentence will be much closer to the maximum than the minimum, and the judge will recommend that they serve a lot more of it than the normal prior to being considered for any release.
Click to expand...

Indeed all aggravating factors are listed in this PDF from the Sentencing Council: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf

Looking at the guidelines, I would/hope guess that the tariff would be somewhere between 14-20 years custody, depending which culpability level the judge decides it sits at (high or very high, as that sets the starting point).
 
Don’t expect that the punishment will fit the crime. The criminal justice system is in terminal decline with ridiculously lenient sentences for crimes where a death has resulted from criminal behaviour.

Just last week, in this case, despite there being a realistic prospect of conviction for manslaughter, the CPS concluded it was not in the public interest to prosecute....because of the impact on a conviction on the offender: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-53475504
 
abbviper said:
Don’t expect that the punishment will fit the crime. The criminal justice system is in terminal decline with ridiculously lenient sentences for crimes where a death has resulted from criminal behaviour.

Just last week, in this case, despite there being a realistic prospect of conviction for manslaughter, the CPS concluded it was not in the public interest to prosecute....because of the impact on a conviction on the offender: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-53475504
Click to expand...

They're just following government legislation... Though in that case I too was annoyed, but then what would ruining the kids future do? It might show that there are consequences to stupid belligerent actions, however you're likely just forcing them to be a burden on society and the net effect is probably negative anyway.

Perhaps there's a middle ground that represents a loss of liberty without making someone unproductive or worse.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
They're just following government legislation... Though in that case I too was annoyed, but then what would ruining the kids future do? It might show that there are consequences to stupid belligerent actions, however you're likely just forcing them to be a burden on society and the net effect is probably negative anyway.

Perhaps there's a middle ground that represents a loss of liberty without making someone unproductive or worse.
Click to expand...

I agree the failures of the CJS are a result of numerous failing governments policies. The CJS is in terminal decline because of those policies and the Sentencing Council.

On the latter case, what would a prosecution serve?

The bereaved family would have some justice and not see those responsible simply walk away scott free. How is that any justice at all? If the child broke a leg, such a decision may be suitable, but causing a death, really.

A conviction should be on record, which would be relevant if he was to commit further offences.

Where relevant, employers will be made aware that this child can act in a reckless manner.

The court has a variety of sentences available including non-custodial options. There are numerous children in court for sexual offences such as rape that do not get detention.

You don’t set a dangerous precedent on the public interest test, if a case like this is not prosecuted where does that end? What next, no prosecution for possession of a knife because it impacts the child’s record?

Why does a drunken man get sent to prison for 14 days for peeing next to a war memorial - how is it the public interest to prosecute and send him to prison despite being named and shamed? I appreciate he was an adult but there was barely any harm in that case.
 
abbviper said:
Why does a drunken man get sent to prison for 14 days for peeing next to a war memorial - how is it the public interest to prosecute and send him to prison despite being named and shamed? I appreciate he was an adult but there was barely any harm in that case.
Click to expand...

The fact that he urinated next to a memorial dedicated to a police officer who was murdered by Isis, may have something to do with it!
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Indeed all aggravating factors are listed in this PDF from the Sentencing Council: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf

Looking at the guidelines, I would/hope guess that the tariff would be somewhere between 14-20 years custody, depending which culpability level the judge decides it sits at (high or very high, as that sets the starting point).
Click to expand...

16 years for the driver, 13 years for the other two

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom