Student protester jailed
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
Not at all. But when you use the knife then it becomes a completely different crime. As I said, I can see why carrying a knife (without good reason) is a crime, but it is effectively a victimless crime.
What statistics are you actually talking about? I would be very suprised if there was such a statistic of how many people carrying a knife end up using one. But the point still stands that when they use a knife then the offence they commit with it becomes the crime with a victim.
I personally think that only four years for stabbing someone twice is fairly light, the fact that it is common doesn't change my opinion of it.
But we don't have a legal system that convicts on similar end result, should we?
Why would anybody carry a knife unless they intended to use it to harm someone as a worst or last resort?
It isn't effectively a victimless crime or we wouldn't have people in court/dead for it day after day. Society is revulsed by the effect on victims, no one single person has the right to say 'I won't use it'.
Statistically, you aren't going to stab someone if you don't have one are you? I realise the correlation is low, but you need people to carry knives to have the crime in the first place. Isn't this clear in context of that statement?
There are serious issues with the collation of statistics in both Scotland and also England & Wales yet there is widespread recognition of harmful consequences of knife carrying to both victims and offenders and to the communities. Statistically it is more likely to be a problem in improverished areas with lack of opportunity, and most of it would appear to be gang related.
Yet the sentencing in that case would largely and sadly seem the norm, it's this case of four years for throwing something that hit no one that would seem out of place in comparison.. not under it's own 'spotlight'. We have to argue under the system we have and fairness in that, not what we should have that politicians have repeatedly failed to provide us - appropriate sentencing.
We have a system that claims it does, or tries to. It fails, and yes we should. The problem is people start to, or pretty much have, lost faith in the sentences passed down for crimes. I believe the same could be said for a significant amount of law enforcement officials also. I see people jailed far longer for fiscal fraud against the crown than I do people murdering people in the street.
It isn't right.
Last edited:
Craftsmen or climbers?
That was covered before. There are genuine reasons or exceptions obviously but that isn't where knife crime generally comes from.
I can legally wear one (or can with it secured now I believe) with a kilt for example, but I'm not sure of much correlation between modern day* kilted Scots and knife crime. *
Last edited:
from the way the thread reads you seem to be saying anyone carrying a knife is a criminal and going to stab someone.
The way you partially read it you mean.
The exclusions have already been mentioned, there for it is now irrelevent in the scope of discussion.
Do you have a point to make, out of interest?
Well said.
Rapists and murderers aren't a threat to the selfish crooks in government and help to keep the sheeple in fear along with terrorism(tm).
Soldato
Burn the witches! Kill them all!
Well, apart from the fact that people have got longer for violent disorder in non-government related protests in Bristol kind of showing your position as nothing but partisan whinging
The difference between carrying a knife and using a knife. If carrying wasn't a victimless crime then there would be a victim every time someone carried a knife.
Obviously for someone to be stabbed a knife needs to be carried, but the actual offense of carrying has no victim. I had a knife with me last Thursday and with an anal police officer I could have been done for carrying if he didn't find my excuse valid (comes in handy for archery sometimes).
Which is why I agreed that I could see the point of the law, even though the offense itself is effectively victimless.
When compared to other violent disorder cases then the three years he got does not seem out of place, only when you start comparing it to other, completely different cases.
I don't think we do and I don't think we ever have. Conduct, intent and a whole host of other circumstances change the nature of the crime you are charged with and possible sentences.
If we should (have a system that depends on outcome) then carrying a knife wouldn't be a crime (no outcome) and anyone that killed someone would get life (or what passes for it). Surely intent and conduct should have bearing rather than just outcome?
What exactly are you suggesting the government did to influence the sentence?