Topic ID 6851
My husband and I live close to Hertford East Station and our whole block has fallen victim to mail theft. In some cases this has led to identity fraud. Just wondered if we are not the only area being targetted - if others have been victims of this? Hopefully police will get to the bottom of it soon. Quite upset that some personal things were taken from our mail.
Reply ID 90738
How was the mail accessed? Before or after delivery?
Reply ID 90748
We have a communal mail box area and we believe it happens after delivery. A neighbour has told me they are looking to put individual mail boxes by each door. This would be much better but I just can't believe someone would do this.
Reply ID 90749
I was the victim of this too. They intercepted a credit card statement and ordered replacement card and PIN in the hope they could intercept that too...thought it strange when I received two new cards in the space of a week. My credit card company rung me to tell me and said they had spoken to several others in the building who had also had the same thing happen...
Reply ID 90780
It's highly likely we probably live in the same block Quizme or the problem is bigger than initially anticipated. Hopefully it will be sorted soon so no one else will have to go through this. My bank contacted me regarding a potential case of fraud but as far as I know we are ok and it was just a precaution.
Reply ID 91760
People involved have been apprehended. http://www.106jack.com/news/local-news/man-sentenced-after-37000-postal-fraud-at-hertford-flats/
Reply ID 91761
A twenty month jail sentence suspended for 2 years, a five-month curfew and 250 hours unpaid work for a £37k theft? Pleased to see the courts are getting tough [V]
Reply ID 91769
Weak weak weak. It must be so soul destroying for the Police to spend countless hours investigating these people, only to find they don't even get punished properly. I am actually surprised the judge didn't say something ridiculous like it takes courage to commit such an offence.......... Where is the deterrent?
Reply ID 91771
I'm not convinced that the nature of many rule-breakers is to consider the consequences of their actions and therefore sentencing as a deterrent is largely ineffectual. The type of person likely to be deterred by the prospect of punishment is not the type to consider committing the crime. Most offenders are either too stupid, reckless or desperate to care about the consequences. What is more relevant and pragmatic is the restitution of the victims, putting those disadvantaged by the crime back into their original position and possible improved a little for the inconvenience. It is with this in mind that the sentencing seems totally inadequate. A theft of £37k plus the costs of investigation and prosecution are not restored by 250 hours of unpaid work. At minimum wage rates of pay that's only about £3000 of value restored.
Reply ID 91780
£60,000 for 120 hours work; £500/hour isn't bad: [url]http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Birch-Green-woman-avoids-jail-for-60000-thefts-because-she-has-children-26102012.htm[/url]
Reply ID 91783
As he was part of a "gang",he may have got a more lenient sentence for helping the police convict the other people. As we do not have all the information,shouldn't we wait until we have all the facts before making judgement of the sentence given.
Reply ID 91826
quote:Speaking from personal experience, it is frustrating at the very least when weak sentencing happens. It requires hundred of hours of work to bring a case like this to court, and knowing the officers involved, a huge level of dedication. Although the sentencing was not as strong as liked, well done to everyone involved on a successful prosecution.
Originally posted by Mark MG
Weak weak weak. It must be so soul destroying for the Police to spend countless hours investigating these people, only to find they don't even get punished properly. I am actually surprised the judge didn't say something ridiculous like it takes courage to commit such an offence.......... Where is the deterrent?
Reply ID 91827
quote:No
Originally posted by dutch knight
As he was part of a "gang",he may have got a more lenient sentence for helping the police convict the other people. As we do not have all the information,shouldn't we wait until we have all the facts before making judgement of the sentence given.
Reply ID 91828
I don't quite understand why the report only details the sentence handed out to one of the gang. What about the rest of them?
Reply ID 91857
quote:Perhaps they are being prosecuted by another force, or it could be that there was insufficient evidence against the other members of the gang.
Originally posted by Steve
I don't quite understand why the report only details the sentence handed out to one of the gang. What about the rest of them?
Reply ID 91870
quote:Would it be right to say, in your experience, that weak sentencing damages Police morale, or do the Police shrug their shoulders and say rubbish judges etc? It would be interesting to know whether the prospect of a weak sentence factors in to the effort the Police put in to investigating crimes. I am not suggesting that the Police are half hearted if they think the punishment is going to be weak, but I wonder whether weak sentences like this, either in isolation or accumulatively, do have an impact? In any event, for the case in hand, the Police deserve congratulation, I am not sure the same can be said of the judge! And yes, I do feel entitled to cast my opinion before we are told whether he was an informant or not. He still committed the offence, and crime is crime is crime!!
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Speaking from personal experience, it is frustrating at the very least when weak sentencing happens. It requires hundred of hours of work to bring a case like this to court, and knowing the officers involved, a huge level of dedication. Although the sentencing was not as strong as liked, well done to everyone involved on a successful prosecution.
Originally posted by Mark MG
Weak weak weak. It must be so soul destroying for the Police to spend countless hours investigating these people, only to find they don't even get punished properly. I am actually surprised the judge didn't say something ridiculous like it takes courage to commit such an offence.......... Where is the deterrent?
Reply ID 91871
quote:It sounds to me like the children would be better off without her anyway.
Originally posted by Ted Badger
£60,000 for 120 hours work; £500/hour isn't bad: [url]http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Birch-Green-woman-avoids-jail-for-60000-thefts-because-she-has-children-26102012.htm[/url]
Reply ID 91934
I couldn't believe it when my neighbour sent me the article regarding The Waterfront (that's where we are) Shocking that people get away with such things. I really feel the sentence should have been harsher but good on the police for catching them. Hopefully our mail will be safer now. Though some scum bag did steal my daughters Christmas parcel recently. :(
Reply ID 91961
quote:I can only speak for myself and say that when investigating a crime, the potential sentencing for a crime doesn't really figure in my thinking. My role is to investigate the crime, gather the evidence and make enquiries diligently and expeditiously, to hopefully find and arrest an offender and to then secure a charge, in order to put that person before the court. The court makes the decision regarding the sentencing, and yes, often it can be frustrating when sentencing is not as strong as I would like, not only for me but also for the victim of the crime. However every so often, the courts will mete out a stiff sentence and this will go a long way to restoring my confidence. So in answer, weak sentencing makes no difference to the way the police investigate crime and in regards to morale? There are other things happening presently which are far more damaging to police morale then sentencing within the courts!! However perhaps it's best I don't get myself into trouble talking about that on a public forum.... :-)
Originally posted by Mark MGquote:Would it be right to say, in your experience, that weak sentencing damages Police morale, or do the Police shrug their shoulders and say rubbish judges etc? It would be interesting to know whether the prospect of a weak sentence factors in to the effort the Police put in to investigating crimes. I am not suggesting that the Police are half hearted if they think the punishment is going to be weak, but I wonder whether weak sentences like this, either in isolation or accumulatively, do have an impact? In any event, for the case in hand, the Police deserve congratulation, I am not sure the same can be said of the judge! And yes, I do feel entitled to cast my opinion before we are told whether he was an informant or not. He still committed the offence, and crime is crime is crime!!
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Speaking from personal experience, it is frustrating at the very least when weak sentencing happens. It requires hundred of hours of work to bring a case like this to court, and knowing the officers involved, a huge level of dedication. Although the sentencing was not as strong as liked, well done to everyone involved on a successful prosecution.
Originally posted by Mark MG
Weak weak weak. It must be so soul destroying for the Police to spend countless hours investigating these people, only to find they don't even get punished properly. I am actually surprised the judge didn't say something ridiculous like it takes courage to commit such an offence.......... Where is the deterrent?
Reply ID 91979
quote:Don't let it stop you. I don't know who you are but is good to have someone who appears to speak with some knowledge/experience (other than Buzz) and as long as we all hide behind our "noms de plume" we are all a bit more likely to say what we feel! I was thinking of changing my on-line persona to "Cowardy Custard" for this very reason. [:D]
Originally posted by bigblokequote:I can only speak for myself and say that when investigating a crime, the potential sentencing for a crime doesn't really figure in my thinking. My role is to investigate the crime, gather the evidence and make enquiries diligently and expeditiously, to hopefully find and arrest an offender and to then secure a charge, in order to put that person before the court. The court makes the decision regarding the sentencing, and yes, often it can be frustrating when sentencing is not as strong as I would like, not only for me but also for the victim of the crime. However every so often, the courts will mete out a stiff sentence and this will go a long way to restoring my confidence. So in answer, weak sentencing makes no difference to the way the police investigate crime and in regards to morale? There are other things happening presently which are far more damaging to police morale then sentencing within the courts!! However perhaps it's best I don't get myself into trouble talking about that on a public forum.... :-)
Originally posted by Mark MGquote:Would it be right to say, in your experience, that weak sentencing damages Police morale, or do the Police shrug their shoulders and say rubbish judges etc? It would be interesting to know whether the prospect of a weak sentence factors in to the effort the Police put in to investigating crimes. I am not suggesting that the Police are half hearted if they think the punishment is going to be weak, but I wonder whether weak sentences like this, either in isolation or accumulatively, do have an impact? In any event, for the case in hand, the Police deserve congratulation, I am not sure the same can be said of the judge! And yes, I do feel entitled to cast my opinion before we are told whether he was an informant or not. He still committed the offence, and crime is crime is crime!!
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Speaking from personal experience, it is frustrating at the very least when weak sentencing happens. It requires hundred of hours of work to bring a case like this to court, and knowing the officers involved, a huge level of dedication. Although the sentencing was not as strong as liked, well done to everyone involved on a successful prosecution.
Originally posted by Mark MG
Weak weak weak. It must be so soul destroying for the Police to spend countless hours investigating these people, only to find they don't even get punished properly. I am actually surprised the judge didn't say something ridiculous like it takes courage to commit such an offence.......... Where is the deterrent?
Reply ID 91982
Oscar Wilde #8207;@Wit_of_Wilde Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
Reply ID 91983
quote:I feel exonerated.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
Oscar Wilde #8207;@Wit_of_Wilde Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
Reply ID 91985
Which of course doesn't mean that anonymity guarantees one man's truth is not in fact twaddle, just that it is more likely to be honestly held twaddle.
Reply ID 91991
quote:[:D][:D]
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
Which of course doesn't mean that anonymity guarantees one man's truth is not in fact twaddle, just that it is more likely to be honestly held twaddle.
Reply ID 92009
Oh trust me on this - I can do twaddle very easily!!
Reply ID 92014
We concentrate far too much on sentencing, like a mob at an excecution. Meanwhile we assume all kinds of things about our justice system in the wider sense. Bigbloke is correct when he says police are extremely zealous in bringing a person to charge, sometimes employing very heavy-handed tactics to do so. On the occasions when they try too hard and act in error, less zeal is put into into correcting that error and apologising for it. My own experience is that wasting police time, malicious and false complaint, as well as resulting complaints to Police Professional Standards, are approached with deliberate apathy. Purjury is treated with the same apathy by judges, who largely ignore it, except in high profile media covered cases. Heavy sentencing is known not to be a deterrent. An efficient and trusted legal process would be. While the system polices itself with less vigour than it does the public, it's unsafe to bay for blood in the form of harsher sentencing or comment on any particular case. Our legal system needs to be tight, just and mistakes within it persued with vigour. Then and only then, can we press for tougher sentencing, if it can be shown to have a positive effect. Otherwise, we just waste public money by doing so.
Reply ID 92015
quote:Shunt, the criminal law has many objectives, not merely deterrence, but also to show society's distaste at the acts which have been committed. Moreover the criminal law seeks to dissuade not only the accused from reoffending, but also to deter others from following the same path. Equally the criminal law seeks to punish by in effect saying this is the price you pay for transgressing our rules. Finally the criminal law exists to, in some way, compensate the victim for the crime for which they have suffered - it may be restitution or it may be that the victim can see that the perpetrator has received their just deserts. I do not suggest that the criminal law achieves all or many of those in every case, but that is the underlying principle. The fact that there is so much political interference in the criminal justice system combined with an attempt to save money by keeping people out of prison, we have a situation whereby it is hard to discern what the criminal law is actually striving to do. My point is that with sentencing, it is not merely deterrence which is the objective, sentences should in fact punish and show repugnance at the crime committed. When one sees very lenient sentences being issued which don't have any discernible punishment attached, it makes it incredibly difficult to see what was the purpose of convicting the person at all in the first place. I don't suggest that everyone who commits a crime should go to prison, but I do think that sentencing has become far too weak and inconsistent. I also believe that imprisonment is obviously not working - not because prison per se doesn't work, but because once people get there they find that actually it is not as tough as they thought it would be. I make no criticism of your posting against tougher sentencing, but I would like to know what you think what can be done instead, so as to achieve the aims of deterrence, punishment, showing repugnance, and compensating the victim. What alternative to tougher sentencing do you propose? It is not sufficient to say that we should not call for tougher sentences, without at least saying what should be done in the alternative?
Originally posted by shunt
We concentrate far too much on sentencing, like a mob at an excecution. Meanwhile we assume all kinds of things about our justice system in the wider sense. Bigbloke is correct when he says police are extremely zealous in bringing a person to charge, sometimes employing very heavy-handed tactics to do so. On the occasions when they try too hard and act in error, less zeal is put into into correcting that error and apologising for it. My own experience is that wasting police time, malicious and false complaint, as well as resulting complaints to Police Professional Standards, are approached with deliberate apathy. Purjury is treated with the same apathy by judges, who largely ignore it, except in high profile media covered cases. Heavy sentencing is known not to be a deterrent. An efficient and trusted legal process would be. While the system polices itself with less vigour than it does the public, it's unsafe to bay for blood in the form of harsher sentencing or comment on any particular case. Our legal system needs to be tight, just and mistakes within it persued with vigour. Then and only then, can we press for tougher sentencing, if it can be shown to have a positive effect. Otherwise, we just waste public money by doing so.
Reply ID 92018
It's really a matter of economics and efficiency. If tougher sentencing doesn't work to deter or prevent re-offending, which statistically it doesn't, it then become an expensive vengence which is required more and more. Alternative investment in probation services and use of community service orders may seem like a "soft option", but if it has the effect of reducing crime, re-offending and the number of victims of crime, we must curb our desire for vengence in favour of what works. The object must be to prevent crime, not to catch and punish criminals. As for the system itself, that has to be beyond reproach. There is an argument for a tougher stance in regulating that system so that citizens and police officers can have absolute confidence in it. For that to be true, the complaints process needs to be robust and have teeth. Ultimately, what reduces crime is respect for a society in which we feel included. Punishment alone does not acheive that goal and often has the opposite effect of exclusion and separation. Harsher sentencing does not instil social responsiblity or remorse in the offender, it just merely focusses them on not being caught and separates them further from that mutual responsibility of being part. It's not an easy problem, but as the US has found, high prison populations don't reduce offending. Proportionality is also hard to get right. Fine a man on £150k, 10% of his income, he'll hardly notice. Fine a man on £10k, 10% of his income and he can't pay his bills. Give both the maximum fine and the gap is even wider. The idea of the "punishment fitting the crime" falls down in this scenario too. It's something of a minefield. Postie nicks twice his income. CEO embezzles the same amount from his company, representing a tiny proportion of his income. How do we deal with both equally in a deterrent based system? There are some for whom a gaol sentence has no effect on re-offending and some for whom it has a negative effect of increasing the likelihood of re-offending. For very few does it have the effect we hope it will.
Reply ID 92022
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders be given. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92023
quote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders be given. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92029
Bigbloke, I agree there are circumstances when removal and containment are the only option, but it almost never solves the problem the person might present to society, before they are released again and therefore is an indication of a failure to find any permenant solution. As for my own feelings of a flawed and unreliable legal system, they stem from malicious complaint leading to false arrest and the almost blanket reluctance of judges to take action on purjury, even when admitted. I perhaps should add that I do not criticise police officers in general, to whom I have reason to be very grateful recently on other matters, but the accountability framework under which they operate. How many people are charged as a result of the terrifying experience of being arrested and detained without evidence, other than malicious accusation? I am reasonably intelligent and eloquent, but I can assure you that arrest and detention are terrifying for an innocent member of the public. I'd might be serving a jail sentence due to the focus on bringing to charge and extracting confession by intimidation, rather than proper investigation. It was not even a serious matter and the intention of the complainant was simply to maliciously cause distress. Police Professional Standards, I found to be primarily concerned with protecting police from any admission of error. As a result, I remain at risk from this person, against whom no action was ever taken and have lost both employment and reputation as well as confidence in the protection of law and police. The intention of law is not to prosecute, except in order to protect. Whether it succeeds depends on how it is monitored, because it will never be perfect and niether are it's administrators. It's why we don't hang people anymore. If we want to toughen sentencing, we must first clean house. For law to be applied robustly, the system by which it is applied must be beyond criticism. At present, I feel there are things to do before we start to clamour for a lynching, specifically in ensuring we have the right person in the first place. Most of the time I hope we do, but I have learned first hand that it is by no means certain.
Reply ID 92030
quote:That's not why we do not hang anymore. We do not hang anymore because the death penalty was considered abhorrent to many at the time. The fact that mistakes as to guilt could be made was a supplementary argument. I think that your post, understandably, is influenced by your own exceptionally and incredibly unfortunate experience and you are absolutely entitled to form the view which you have. However, in cases where it is clear that we have the right person of course we should expect tougher sentencing. It seems ridiculous to say that punishment should not be stronger on the off chance we have the wrong person. I have in mind the case of the illegal immigrant who knocked over a young child and killed her and received a weak sentence and could not be deported at the end of it. It was clear that he was guilty, and the reason he got off so lightly had nothing to do with the concerns that he was not guilty, it was because the criminal justice system is weak and in moat cases places the interests of the guilty above those of the victim. Now to bring this forum back to the original posting, the thefts which were clearly carried out by those who were convicted, one lady was given a community sentence because she had a child and her husband would have to give up work to look after them. Her punishment was in effect no punishment at all. It had nothing to do with doubts whether she was really the culprit or not, it was because the criminal justice system is weak. Now there is no disincentive for her not to commit more crime, and there is no disincentive to others not to do the same.
Originally posted by shunt
Bigbloke, I agree there are circumstances when removal and containment are the only option, but it almost never solves the problem the person might present to society, before they are released again and therefore is an indication of a failure to find any permenant solution. As for my own feelings of a flawed and unreliable legal system, they stem from malicious complaint leading to false arrest and the almost blanket reluctance of judges to take action on purjury, even when admitted. I perhaps should add that I do not criticise police officers in general, to whom I have reason to be very grateful recently on other matters, but the accountability framework under which they operate. How many people are charged as a result of the terrifying experience of being arrested and detained without evidence, other than malicious accusation? I am reasonably intelligent and eloquent, but I can assure you that arrest and detention are terrifying for an innocent member of the public. I'd might be serving a jail sentence due to the focus on bringing to charge and extracting confession by intimidation, rather than proper investigation. It was not even a serious matter and the intention of the complainant was simply to maliciously cause distress. Police Professional Standards, I found to be primarily concerned with protecting police from any admission of error. As a result, I remain at risk from this person, against whom no action was ever taken and have lost both employment and reputation as well as confidence in the protection of law and police. The intention of law is not to prosecute, except in order to protect. Whether it succeeds depends on how it is monitored, because it will never be perfect and niether are it's administrators. It's why we don't hang people anymore. If we want to toughen sentencing, we must first clean house. For law to be applied robustly, the system by which it is applied must be beyond criticism. At present, I feel there are things to do before we start to clamour for a lynching, specifically in ensuring we have the right person in the first place. Most of the time I hope we do, but I have learned first hand that it is by no means certain.
Reply ID 92031
quote:In the case you quote, the sentence takes into account the effect on the husband and child, who are not defendant and not legally responsible for the actions of the woman, unless conspiracy was also proved. The welfare of children is always a consideration in sentencing. I agree it does not seem fair and I'm sure many divorced fathers who leave court homeless and penniless would agree. My point was not specific to mistaken identity, but an example the margin for error in general. Money available for expert lawyers, for instance, can skew the result of a case in either direction, not just in a guilty or not guilty verdict, so it is unsafe to bias sentencing towards harsh. This does mean some sentences will appear light and the capacity for error works both ways. I agree that capital punishment was a moral issue, but at the time, those who felt that to use of examples of error was the only way to convince a more conservative (small 'c') establishment, who at that time considered the punishment just, as long as proof was believed infallible.
Originally posted by Mark MGquote:That's not why we do not hang anymore. We do not hang anymore because the death penalty was considered abhorrent to many at the time. The fact that mistakes as to guilt could be made was a supplementary argument. I think that your post, understandably, is influenced by your own exceptionally and incredibly unfortunate experience and you are absolutely entitled to form the view which you have. However, in cases where it is clear that we have the right person of course we should expect tougher sentencing. It seems ridiculous to say that punishment should not be stronger on the off chance we have the wrong person. I have in mind the case of the illegal immigrant who knocked over a young child and killed her and received a weak sentence and could not be deported at the end of it. It was clear that he was guilty, and the reason he got off so lightly had nothing to do with the concerns that he was not guilty, it was because the criminal justice system is weak and in moat cases places the interests of the guilty above those of the victim. Now to bring this forum back to the original posting, the thefts which were clearly carried out by those who were convicted, one lady was given a community sentence because she had a child and her husband would have to give up work to look after them. Her punishment was in effect no punishment at all. It had nothing to do with doubts whether she was really the culprit or not, it was because the criminal justice system is weak. Now there is no disincentive for her not to commit more crime, and there is no disincentive to others not to do the same.
Originally posted by shunt
Bigbloke, I agree there are circumstances when removal and containment are the only option, but it almost never solves the problem the person might present to society, before they are released again and therefore is an indication of a failure to find any permenant solution. As for my own feelings of a flawed and unreliable legal system, they stem from malicious complaint leading to false arrest and the almost blanket reluctance of judges to take action on purjury, even when admitted. I perhaps should add that I do not criticise police officers in general, to whom I have reason to be very grateful recently on other matters, but the accountability framework under which they operate. How many people are charged as a result of the terrifying experience of being arrested and detained without evidence, other than malicious accusation? I am reasonably intelligent and eloquent, but I can assure you that arrest and detention are terrifying for an innocent member of the public. I'd might be serving a jail sentence due to the focus on bringing to charge and extracting confession by intimidation, rather than proper investigation. It was not even a serious matter and the intention of the complainant was simply to maliciously cause distress. Police Professional Standards, I found to be primarily concerned with protecting police from any admission of error. As a result, I remain at risk from this person, against whom no action was ever taken and have lost both employment and reputation as well as confidence in the protection of law and police. The intention of law is not to prosecute, except in order to protect. Whether it succeeds depends on how it is monitored, because it will never be perfect and niether are it's administrators. It's why we don't hang people anymore. If we want to toughen sentencing, we must first clean house. For law to be applied robustly, the system by which it is applied must be beyond criticism. At present, I feel there are things to do before we start to clamour for a lynching, specifically in ensuring we have the right person in the first place. Most of the time I hope we do, but I have learned first hand that it is by no means certain.
Reply ID 92033
Wanted large man broken nose wearing a hoodie and goes by the nick name Shunt, LOL.
Reply ID 92035
quote:Thank you Buzz for the literal interpretation of my comment - your disection of it has added hugely to the discussion.
Originally posted by buzzquote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders begiven. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92036
quote:the welfare of the children argument again. Ibrahim, the hit and run bloke was a failed asylum seeker and when he became appeal rights exhausted should have been removed by the UKBA. They failed to do so at that point (2002). No surprise there then. He committed his most famous offence in 2003 (whilst serving a nine-month driving ban for not having insurance or a licence). Despite the fact that this was no normal motoring accident and had major aggravating factors attached he was sentenced for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident. He got credit from the judge for pleading guilty. Since his release from prison (for killing someone let us not forget) he went on to gain many other convictions, including more driving offences, harassment and cautions for burglary and theft. I accept that the UKBA should have tried to deport him sooner than they did and that is one of their many failings. The fact is, this bloke killed someone. Did time. Came out, committed further offence of a similar nature (which could have also killed another innocent child). What on earth is a judge or the police to do when i) the bloke shouldnt even be in the UK but for him blowing his beans up someone who is allowed to live in the UK - so he remains ii) because he remains HE KEEPS offfending iii) because of this its clear that he doesnt give a toss about the law, going back inside or who he injures or kills. What is the answer? send him on an advanced drivers course? tell him that he is to meet his probation officer weekly and that he has to get the bus to that appointment? people like him DO NOT GIVE A TOSS about anyone but themselves. If that means that he has to stay in prison to protect the public from him offending again and again and again, I would be quite happy to deny him and his family their human rights to ensure that I and others (who arent recidivist criminals) can enjoy ours in peace. sometimes prison is the only option, especially where the offences are serious - and if that means that his kids grow up without him so that yours arent mowed down by him (and others like him) then so be it - throw away the key. I accept nicking a bit of post is not on the same level as killing someone in a car, but you can bet your bollocks to a barndance that they will offend again - they have the taste for it and people like that dont want to get up at 7am and get on a train to do an honest days work. What then, do we do?
Originally posted by shuntquote:In the case you quote, the sentence takes into account the effect on the husband and child, who are not defendant and not legally responsible for the actions of the woman, unless conspiracy was also proved. The welfare of children is always a consideration in sentencing. I agree it does not seem fair and I'm sure many divorced fathers who leave court homeless and penniless would agree. My point was not specific to mistaken identity, but an example the margin for error in general. Money available for expert lawyers, for instance, can skew the result of a case in either direction, not just in a guilty or not guilty verdict, so it is unsafe to bias sentencing towards harsh. This does mean some sentences will appear light and the capacity for error works both ways. I agree that capital punishment was a moral issue, but at the time, those who felt that to use of examples of error was the only way to convince a more conservative (small 'c') establishment, who at that time considered the punishment just, as long as proof was believed infallible.
Originally posted by Mark MGquote:That's not why we do not hang anymore. We do not hang anymore because the death penalty was considered abhorrent to many at the time. The fact that mistakes as to guilt could be made was a supplementary argument. I think that your post, understandably, is influenced by your own exceptionally and incredibly unfortunate experience and you are absolutely entitled to form the view which you have. However, in cases where it is clear that we have the right person of course we should expect tougher sentencing. It seems ridiculous to say that punishment should not be stronger on the off chance we have the wrong person. I have in mind the case of the illegal immigrant who knocked over a young child and killed her and received a weak sentence and could not be deported at the end of it. It was clear that he was guilty, and the reason he got off so lightly had nothing to do with the concerns that he was not guilty, it was because the criminal justice system is weak and in moat cases places the interests of the guilty above those of the victim. Now to bring this forum back to the original posting, the thefts which were clearly carried out by those who were convicted, one lady was given a community sentence because she had a child and her husband would have to give up work to look after them. Her punishment was in effect no punishment at all. It had nothing to do with doubts whether she was really the culprit or not, it was because the criminal justice system is weak. Now there is no disincentive for her not to commit more crime, and there is no disincentive to others not to do the same.
Originally posted by shunt
Bigbloke, I agree there are circumstances when removal and containment are the only option, but it almost never solves the problem the person might present to society, before they are released again and therefore is an indication of a failure to find any permenant solution. As for my own feelings of a flawed and unreliable legal system, they stem from malicious complaint leading to false arrest and the almost blanket reluctance of judges to take action on purjury, even when admitted. I perhaps should add that I do not criticise police officers in general, to whom I have reason to be very grateful recently on other matters, but the accountability framework under which they operate. How many people are charged as a result of the terrifying experience of being arrested and detained without evidence, other than malicious accusation? I am reasonably intelligent and eloquent, but I can assure you that arrest and detention are terrifying for an innocent member of the public. I'd might be serving a jail sentence due to the focus on bringing to charge and extracting confession by intimidation, rather than proper investigation. It was not even a serious matter and the intention of the complainant was simply to maliciously cause distress. Police Professional Standards, I found to be primarily concerned with protecting police from any admission of error. As a result, I remain at risk from this person, against whom no action was ever taken and have lost both employment and reputation as well as confidence in the protection of law and police. The intention of law is not to prosecute, except in order to protect. Whether it succeeds depends on how it is monitored, because it will never be perfect and niether are it's administrators. It's why we don't hang people anymore. If we want to toughen sentencing, we must first clean house. For law to be applied robustly, the system by which it is applied must be beyond criticism. At present, I feel there are things to do before we start to clamour for a lynching, specifically in ensuring we have the right person in the first place. Most of the time I hope we do, but I have learned first hand that it is by no means certain.
Reply ID 92037
Exiled In Reading - I applaud you. Best post I have read in a long time and I agree totally.
Reply ID 92038
EIR - spot on - thank you.
Reply ID 92041
quote:Well, how else is your comment meant to be taken? I assume you actually meant to say "dissection"
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Thank you Buzz for the literal interpretation of my comment - your disection of it has added hugely to the discussion.
Originally posted by buzzquote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders begiven. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92042
quote:I agree
Originally posted by Mark MG
Exiled In Reading - I applaud you. Best post I have read in a long time and I agree totally.
Reply ID 92043
EIR. That perhaps is the real problem. Sentencing for serious offences and sentencing for minor ones don't seem to always match or make sense. It gets even more complex when there is a deportation issue. We have entered into so many deals and treaties to protect our citizens elsewhere, that our hands are also tied by the all of same laws and that can lead to an apparent injustice in our own country. My own experiences of the abuse of law, though different, are all part of reactive politics and policing. Law has to be applied equally and with moderation. Personal opinion cannot be part or law becomes only available to attractive, confident, efficient, convincing and wealthy people. The vast majority of the UK population do not fall into that catagory. However, the case of Ibrahim is not the same as postie nicking mail though and had different motivations. I could give examples of when the sentencing seemed disproportionally harsh in response, but there really wouldn't be any point. That it's becoming erratic and unpreditable, partly due to excessive lobbying from many sources is what I see as destabilising law. The problems of a shaky flawed system are adequately displayed by these two examples alone. It not it's whether to harsh or too soft, but whether consistent. Just one small point EIR. Postie doesn't get up at 7am to get on a train. He's been at work for quite a while by then. ;) Angrily ranting at it isn't going to change anything for the better and is part of the problem. We live in a media driven world where extreme ideas are heard directly and can influence, before common sense filters them out. There is always someone shouting rubbish, so politics and policy becomes more reactive, rather than considered.
Reply ID 92044
quote:Don't worry about it bigbloke. We knew what you meant. One of Buzz's favourite games is to take posts literally, to make spurious points which display his massive intellect and grasp of language, with little regard for the sensibilities of the recipient who may be relatively new to the "game" and don't really need to be pilloried for semantic pecadilloes.
Originally posted by buzzquote:Well, how else is your comment meant to be taken? I assume you actually meant to say "dissection"
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Thank you Buzz for the literal interpretation of my comment - your disection of it has added hugely to the discussion.
Originally posted by buzzquote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders begiven. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92045
quote:Seconded (I think its actually fourthed?).
Originally posted by buzzquote:I agree
Originally posted by Mark MG
Exiled In Reading - I applaud you. Best post I have read in a long time and I agree totally.
Reply ID 92048
quote:This isn't angry ranting. It's just a normal bloke saying he is fed up with having his tax money spent on prosecuting individuals, to no avail. I have posted an open invitation for you to give me a solution - either to the public's frequent outcry of weak sentencing for serious offending behaviour or to the fact that harsher sentencing seems to have little to no impact on more recidivist offenders. Instead of rather noncommittally advocating that 'Law has to be applied equally and with moderation' - what is the answer - especially when someone commits a serious offence - and in particuar poses a danger to the public? The fact is that despite what you say, the reality is that the law should not be applied equally. By that I mean that if you are given a chance by a Judge to avoid the big house by an indulgent sentence in the first instance- you take it with both hands - you dont keep offending - and if you do you should expect the court to come down on you like a ton of bricks - kids or no kids - they should not be used as a silver bullet...
Originally posted by shunt
Angrily ranting at it isn't going to change anything for the better and is part of the problem. We live in a media driven world where extreme ideas are heard directly and can influence, before common sense filters them out. There is always someone shouting rubbish, so politics and policy becomes more reactive, rather than considered.
Reply ID 92050
What can be done? First of all we should not make things worse for the victim. It is not weak to impose a sentence that doesn't draw blood from an offender. It is not soft to not inflict a mental torture on an offender because we can imagine nothing else. It takes courage to resist the baying calls for whatever degree of vengeful brutalisation that a disturbed mind equates as justice. It takes strength only do the constructive rather than to destroy in turn. Society should be concerned with ensuring that the offender's life is fully occupied with constructive work and too busy or exhausted to invent criminal enterprises. That we don't do this lies in part because it contradicts the perverse prevailing ideology that work has be created by a market and doesn't exist otherwise, but that’s another debate and not for now. Regular citizens are trusted to find their own work and organize their own lives, criminals have lost that trust and should have work found for them and supervised while they apply themselves to it. Doing so would provide for their own support in addition to paying tax and a levy to the victims. Only if the offender fails to comply should society have to shoulder the cost of them being locked up and kept idle. Fate decides if we are to become a criminal's target, but we decide if we are to become a victim. To seek a brutalising revenge and punishment can only be conceived in state anger and bitterness. Anger and bitterness are the choices made by the targeted that turns them into a victim. There no more corrosive, destructive and miserable feelings for the soul than anger and bitterness. Forgiveness is the choice not to become angry and bitter and we must help the targeted not to make those choices. We do that by ourselves not choosing bitterness and setting an example of forgiveness and compassion. The weak seek revenge. Forgiveness is the choice of the courageous and to take it takes strength.
Reply ID 92051
"Society should be concerned with ensuring that the offender's life is fully occupied with constructive work and too busy or exhausted to invent criminal enterprises. That we don't do this lies in part because it contradicts the perverse prevailing ideology that work has be created by a market and doesn't exist otherwise, but that’s another debate and not for now". I think that simplistic "criminal profiles" might conclude that some (many) criminals are bad people who have decided the laws of society can be broken. If you have turned to crime to avoid work (or work isn't enough to fund your aspirations) then the provision of "occupational opportunity" will be pointless for some of these individuals. This is the crux of the issue, society (including the criminal elements) is made up of individuals. Policies (on anything including sentencing) cannot take into account individual circumstances or motivations that is why we allow judges to sentence individually some of the time. Trying to understand criminal (or any other) motivations by applying your own is akin to those of us who apply human desires to animal behaviours.
Reply ID 92055
quote:"The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.?" "semantic pecadilloes"? Hardly. A blatant untruth. "We knew what you meant" So, you claim to speak for everyone else on this forum then?
Originally posted by Darcy Sartoquote:Don't worry about it bigbloke. We knew what you meant. One of Buzz's favourite games is to take posts literally, to make spurious points which display his massive intellect and grasp of language, with little regard for the sensibilities of the recipient who may be relatively new to the "game" and don't really need to be pilloried for semantic pecadilloes.
Originally posted by buzzquote:Well, how else is your comment meant to be taken? I assume you actually meant to say "dissection"
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Thank you Buzz for the literal interpretation of my comment - your disection of it has added hugely to the discussion.
Originally posted by buzzquote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders begiven. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92056
Trying to understand criminal (or any other) motivations by applying your own is akin to those of us who apply human desires to animal behaviours. Forgiveness is not about trying to understand criminal motives but about reducing the impact on the victim. If a target can choose to shrug off the misfortune of having been a criminal's target. Accepting it as just one of those things that happens in life and not make it source of life-long resentment and injustice, then the impact of the crime is minimised. Society can help by not setting an example equating justice as a revenge by brutalisation.
Reply ID 92057
quote:[:D]
Originally posted by buzzquote:"The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.?" "semantic pecadilloes"? Hardly. A blatant untruth. "We knew what you meant" So, you claim to speak for everyone else on this forum then?
Originally posted by Darcy Sartoquote:Don't worry about it bigbloke. We knew what you meant. One of Buzz's favourite games is to take posts literally, to make spurious points which display his massive intellect and grasp of language, with little regard for the sensibilities of the recipient who may be relatively new to the "game" and don't really need to be pilloried for semantic pecadilloes.
Originally posted by buzzquote:Well, how else is your comment meant to be taken? I assume you actually meant to say "dissection"
Originally posted by bigblokequote:Thank you Buzz for the literal interpretation of my comment - your disection of it has added hugely to the discussion.
Originally posted by buzzquote:That's not strictly true. There have been numerous murders of prisoners by other prisoners. Assaults, both GBH and ABH. Drug offences...etc.....
Originally posted by bigbloke
Shunt, do you really feel that our legal system is that flawed? I do fully respect your opinion and I have no knowledge of your personal experience of the criminal justice system, but what you are espousing appears to have no consideration for the victims of crime - which in my opinion should be the primary focus of the system. I agree with you that community sentencing and supervision by probation have their place, and would even agree that for all but the most serious of offences, I would hate to see a young person much below the age of 22-23 ever given a custodial sentence. Sometimes however, when I sometimes see a prolific offender be given successive community sentences, often committing further offences whilst still serving those community sentences, I do wonder how many chances should these offenders begiven. I have time and again updated victims of crime who have expressed disappointment in the sanctions brought by the courts, and sometimes the only way that these victims feel safe is when the offenders are actually given a custodial sentence, because for at least the length of the sentence, the victim and the community around them are safe from that offender. The one thing that nobody can argue about prison is that while people are there, they commit no crime, therefore there are no victims.
Reply ID 92058
"Forgiveness is not about trying to understand criminal motives but about reducing the impact on the victim". Is it?
Reply ID 92068
quote:You are pushing on a open door. I agree that children do allow an immunity which seems unfair. I agree that persons who are a danger to the public need to be restricted, by imprisonment if required. What I find difficult is the clamouring for every sentence to be harsher, often citing individual cases as an example, which are all completely different. There will always be examples of miscarriage of justice, sometimes seemingly too lenient and sometimes the opposite. What I have learned from my recent experiences in court is that it's impossible to judge which is which unless you actually sit through the whole trial and know every detail. The solution to lower crime in the general population, since you insist, is unpopular. It's moderate socialism, I'm afraid, or oppressive fascist dictatorship. Both work to reduce crime. The one thing which doesn't is conservatism, particularly of the type which is drifting in to Europe from the U.S. We can expect it to get worse while crime is seen as a seperate issue to wider social policy.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Readingquote:This isn't angry ranting. It's just a normal bloke saying he is fed up with having his tax money spent on prosecuting individuals, to no avail. I have posted an open invitation for you to give me a solution - either to the public's frequent outcry of weak sentencing for serious offending behaviour or to the fact that harsher sentencing seems to have little to no impact on more recidivist offenders. Instead of rather noncommittally advocating that 'Law has to be applied equally and with moderation' - what is the answer - especially when someone commits a serious offence - and in particuar poses a danger to the public? The fact is that despite what you say, the reality is that the law should not be applied equally. By that I mean that if you are given a chance by a Judge to avoid the big house by an indulgent sentence in the first instance- you take it with both hands - you dont keep offending - and if you do you should expect the court to come down on you like a ton of bricks - kids or no kids - they should not be used as a silver bullet...
Originally posted by shunt
Angrily ranting at it isn't going to change anything for the better and is part of the problem. We live in a media driven world where extreme ideas are heard directly and can influence, before common sense filters them out. There is always someone shouting rubbish, so politics and policy becomes more reactive, rather than considered.