Just been burgled

Tesla · 7 Jul 2006 at 17:12

mejinks said:
Not that I'm a KW, but I'm all for vigilantism (is that a word?)

Caught the scrote that stole my car stereo and broke every finger on his hand with a pump pliers. Twas my cousin too.

If I caught anyone stealing from me, I would have no problem dishing out my own brand of punishment.

Your own cousin stole stuff from you?

TripleT · 7 Jul 2006 at 17:22

Take them out of the gene pool, castration IS the answer :mad:

Absolute joke :mad:

Red and White · 7 Jul 2006 at 17:24

sorry to hear that

hope they throw the book at the little ******** :mad:

Dolph · 7 Jul 2006 at 21:33

dirtydog said:
This case makes me think of the debates you and I have taken part in, about tough sentencing versus cleanup rates. Clearly in this case the criminal HAS been caught by the police, but because of our weak/non-existent punishments, he is free to do it again, and no doubt will.

And perhaps if he'd known he'd face severe punishment if caught, he might have been deterred from doing it in the first place. As it was, he knew he'd get away with it even if caught, so there was nothing stopping him.

In this case, I agree with you entirely. I also believe I have stated that some form of decent punishment is necessary for such a system to work.

Where I have objected is claims that raising the sentance to something ludicrous is the answer to bringing crime down.

Take burglary as an (appropriate) example. Set a 6 month standard term, and get cleanup rates decent, so you're pretty much likely to get caught, and every time you get caught (which should be pretty much every time you burgle or even 9 times out of 10) you go away for six full months... multiply it for repeat offenders and crime will drop very quickly.

Of course, in this case the cleanup has been fine, the punishment has not, you need both a good cleanup rate and meaningful punishment (note meaningful, not draconian) for it to matter.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:14

Dolph said:
In this case, I agree with you entirely. I also believe I have stated that some form of decent punishment is necessary for such a system to work.

Where I have objected is claims that raising the sentance to something ludicrous is the answer to bringing crime down.

Is it that ludicrous ?

Take burglary as an (appropriate) example. Set a 6 month standard term, and get cleanup rates decent, so you're pretty much likely to get caught, and every time you get caught (which should be pretty much every time you burgle or even 9 times out of 10) you go away for six full months... multiply it for repeat offenders and crime will drop very quickly.

So your average burglar sees a 6 month sentence as a free for all to get in someone's house as he knows a short sentence is what he gets IF he gets caught. I am at a loss as to how you think a lower sentence will affect clean-up rates ? Even for a reduced sentence, your burglar will not cough a job with no evidence against him. He will only do that if he is bang to rights, ie his or her DNA places them at a scene where they shouldn't have been. A detective saying cough this job and you only get 6 months will not wash unless there is evidence there in the first place.

I agree with the reapeat offender concept. In my judgement, any burglar convicted a third time would get the maximum of 14 years and if that is deemed draconian then draconian it is. While in custody, they cannot burgle.

Also, in terms of clear up rates, look at the bigger picture. A burglar does 30 burglaries and then gets caught at it by the cops and is bang to rights. They know they are going over the wall and that is when the TIC's kick in. Is there any other jobs you want to have ? Thats when a lot of burglaries get detected. They may be charged with one or two and get many more TIC'd.

Dolph · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:25

Von Smallhausen said:
Is it that ludicrous ?

In the threads being referred to, huge increases in sentances have been proposed with no attempt to actually make it more likely for people to get caught. When you know you're not going to get caught (or it's incredibly unlikely to get caught) sentancing doesn't really matter.

So your average burglar sees a 6 month sentence as a free for all to get in someone's house as he knows a short sentence is what he gets IF he gets caught. I am at a loss as to how you think a lower sentence will affect clean-up rates ? Even for a reduced sentence, your burglar will not cough a job with no evidence against him. He will only do that if he is bang to rights, ie his or her DNA places them at a scene where they shouldn't have been. A detective saying cough this job and you only get 6 months will not wash unless there is evidence there in the first place.

I've not said that reducing sentances will improve cleanup rates :confused:

What I've said is that improved cleanup rates will reduce crime, provided sentancing is sensible.

With a much improved cleanup rate (it currently runs about 10% for burglary, so only 1 in 10 crimes gets solved, and that includes the inept and incompetant criminals, as well as the seasoned pros) it certainly does become an issue. IF you get the cleanup rate up, to say 90% (not unreasonable as other countries do manage it), then nearly every time you commit a crime, you're going to get put in prison. (The 6 month thing was just an example, it could always be increased). That would be a fairly major deterannt.

I agree with the reapeat offender concept. In my judgement, any burglar convicted a third time would get the maximum of 14 years and if that is deemed draconian then draconian it is. While in custody, they cannot burgle.

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that in all honesty. But simply implementing that without trying to improve cleanup rates isn't going to deter anyone.

Also, in terms of clear up rates, look at the bigger picture. A burglar does 30 burglaries and then gets caught at it by the cops and is bang to rights. They know they are going over the wall and that is when the TIC's kick in. Is there any other jobs you want to have ? Thats when a lot of burglaries get detected. They may be charged with one or two and get many more TIC'd.

Well, again, if you could get cleanup rates up, this would be less of an issue.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:48

I'm not sure how you think clean-up rates can be improved greatly with things like burglary Dolph. You are either convicted on being caught red handed, evidence linking you to the scene or strong cicumstantial evidence.

Burglary will always have a lower clean-up raete compared to the likes of public order offences as they are invariably caught in the act and by the cops so evidence is a lot stronger, although I agree 10 per cent is not a great deal although that may be the national average with individual forces getting better rates.

I must have misread your post on clean up rates and sentencing.

Iceberg2 · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:56

paul@ said:
I admit I caught one of the little buggers after throwing eggs at my front door for no reason what so ever, I took him home to his parents and the reaction of the parent was so unbelievable, the mother told me to go and **** off!

dude i would have beaten the mother to death.

malfunkshun · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:25

The law is pretty much optimised to enhance detection and processing rates, through this crime stats are superficially low and decreasing. The end result is legions of scumbags playing the tweaked rules to do as they please with minimal punishment. Political appearance before political effectiveness, as always.

Dave2150 · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:29

nealw said:
bad luck mate get your pitchfork and get some justice

vigilante for the win!

VeNT · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:30

I wish the police would even check up on things tho, when my car was broken into they realy didn't give a toss. said they would send someone down to take a statement but didn't bother, I phoned back the next day (having waited in for this guy) to be told that they "didn't think it was worth it realy" as "we hardly ever catch them unless somone sees them do it".
the very least they could have done was ask what went missing, incase any of it turned up.

G-MAN2004 · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:44

VeNT said:
then when they least expect it, jump out and break their legs

LOL! That's got to be one of the funniest things i've read this week!

To the OP, Sorry to hear about it

I say bring back capitol punishment for all the scum out there! :mad:

basmic · 8 Jul 2006 at 00:01

Here is something, just for you SB118.

Hope you see the funny side.

Treefrog jr. · 8 Jul 2006 at 01:45

nealw said:
bad luck mate get your pitchfork and get some justice

yes

mejinks · 8 Jul 2006 at 02:12

Tesla said:
Your own cousin stole stuff from you?

Yeah, he apparently didn't know it was my car. ****
Hes currently on a 5 stretch now I think. He was adopted though and there was no helping him. He has been a pain in the side of the family for years, so at least hes where he truly belongs, crying for his mum in jail!

Just goes to show, although he commited 143 offences before he was locked up, he gets the same amount of time inside as a convicted paedo. There really is no sensible justice really is there.

dirtydog · 8 Jul 2006 at 09:41

Von Smallhausen said:
So your average burglar sees a 6 month sentence as a free for all to get in someone's house as he knows a short sentence is what he gets IF he gets caught. I am at a loss as to how you think a lower sentence will affect clean-up rates ? Even for a reduced sentence, your burglar will not cough a job with no evidence against him. He will only do that if he is bang to rights, ie his or her DNA places them at a scene where they shouldn't have been. A detective saying cough this job and you only get 6 months will not wash unless there is evidence there in the first place.

I agree with the reapeat offender concept. In my judgement, any burglar convicted a third time would get the maximum of 14 years and if that is deemed draconian then draconian it is. While in custody, they cannot burgle.

Agreed. And if burglary attracted a tough minimum sentence even for the first conviction then it must have a deterrent effect. Those that aren't deterred but are caught will at least be off the streets for a long time, unlike now. It is a no-brainer to me that draconian sentences can and do reduce crime. Just look at Singapore.

SB118 · 13 Aug 2006 at 11:00

Heard back from the officer yesterday, all the scotes have had a warning, so we can all feel safe now.

Would i like to meet some of the scum face to face so they can appologise? No.

How do i get compensated now that they have dodged a criminal hearing? Well one of them has saved up £120 of her pocket money to help pay for the walls to be repainted and tools replaced. Great, how do i get some? Well you would have to meet them to get the money. Not so great.

So now i have to sit down with the dregs and be all nicey nicey in an attempt to be paid for the damage these little ***** did.

Fantastic.

Don't swear. FF.

The_Dark_Side · 13 Aug 2006 at 12:05

SB118 said:
Heard back from the officer yesterday, all the scotes have had a warning, so we can all feel safe now.

Would i like to meet some of the scum face to face so they can appologise? No.

How do i get compensated now that they have dodged a criminal hearing? Well one of them has saved up £120 of her pocket money to help pay for the walls to be repainted and tools replaced. Great, how do i get some? Well you would have to meet them to get the money. Not so great.

So now i have to sit down with the dregs and be all nicey nicey in an attempt to be paid for the damage these little ***** did.

Fantastic.

Don't swear. FF.

look at it this way, the fact one of them has even considered saving some money to recompense you, never mind actually doing it, shows they feel at least a grain of remorse.
it's quite probable that they will fell just as uncomfortable at the prospect of meeting you too, possibly even more so.
if you go through with the meeting it's just possible that you may sway at least one of them towards the more law-abiding path.
that, at least, has to be a good thing.

SB118 · 19 Aug 2006 at 14:20

heh, backyard has been done again, overnight this time. Got my 500w inverter, car battery charger and my car polisher (proper one too, not a halfords/argos job)

Not even going to bother reporting it this time.

Was going to give the new van a wash and scrub up this weekend too, ho hum.

alexakasloth · 19 Aug 2006 at 14:22

Dude that sucks