I do indeed have nothing better to do and these guidelines do seem reasonable-ish (at least for adults). Of course that's before the judge performs his sinister calculus: deducting a third for the (nearly inevitable) guilty plea. Then the parole people take their turn, turning the second half of the sentence into an undoubtedly undemanding period of "community supervision".
I'd be more concerned about youth sentencing, as street robberies (that is, the type of robbery that cause people real disquiet) are almost invariably a very young man's game. In that light, the 37% custodial sentence figure is worrisome, and probably indicates in part why Blair has had so much difficulty achieveing a breakthrough on mugging numbers.
The fact that the youth guidelines apply to a seventeen year-old would also offer some explanation. I imagine a fifteen year-old would need to steal the tiara off of the Queen's head to be imprisoned.
Agreed; I don't see that it's in any way "about right" that there's such a difference between the sentencing of yoof and grups. I'm minded to believe that a 63% discharge(*) rate for yoof contributes nicely to them becoming habitual scofflaws.
(*) As my scientific training mandates, when I *see* some yoof performing community sentences, then I'll believe in them. Community sentences, that is, not yoof.
Some sections of the press seem to be misusing freedom of speech these days. If they don't have a headline they make one up and hide their sources. It is a haven for the uneducated and selfish who are more worried about the number of copies sold then the effect their lies have on the public. The only way to stop them is to hit them where it hurts (in the pocket). For example, more and more celebrities are suing the tabloids and winning.
The judiciary is not alone. The police get nobbled daily.
Just hack their fingers off. That will put an end to any career in robbery.
You'd think, but in the current climate of etc. and so on and so forth, they could probably sue the government for loss of income, and use the money to buy new titanium cybernetic fingers that would let them rip the side off of a Group 4 van quicker than you can say "Drunk at 2pm, Rogerborg? When did you become a journalist and/or member of Parliament?"
I agree broadly, but why should persons carrying out public duties be regarded as less seriously affected if the robbery occurs during normal working hours? If a nurse has her mobile stolen, with force, while she is working in the hospital, I would have thought it a very serious offence!
Philjrob, no one's disputing that robbery of a person providing a service to the public (not just 'carrying out public duties' -- it's anyone) is a serious offence whenever it's committed.
However, it's further aggravated by the fact it takes place when the hours at which they're providing this service, like the doctor on call or the mini-cab driver in the middle of the night, put them at particular risk.
Carry on like this much longer and you WILL lose control of the streets - people already feel that the police won't protect them before the fact and the courts won't do anything after the fact.
The days are not far off when the rest of us will be forced to pick up arms and have our own justice.
For those of a like mind to Katie, a shotgun license will set you back around £50 plus the cost of a secure storage locker, then after you pass a cursory background check and site inspection, you're perfectly entitled to get on with preparing your Compound for the End Days.
Reports of the death of the Armed Law Abiding Briton are greatly exaggerated.
Carry on like what, Katie?
The Guidelines seem to be carefully considered and rational, unlike the press response to them.
Carry on sentencing first time muggers to a weekly 20 minute chat with a probation officer.
When young Mugger Jim, 17 appears before you, "first time";
50% of crimes unreported - It's actually his second time.
40% detection rate for reported robbery - It's his fourth or fifth time.
Convictions per alleged robber is around 10% at best (BCS).
Now, this is the trickiest one to backtrack. Let's assume half of accusations are, in fact, unjustified[1] - that convictions per correctly alleged robber is 20%.
That implies that this is actually his 25th offence.
And you guys still want to send him for a chat that won't inconvience him at all?
[1] That's a lot. That's AFTER the decisions to prosecute have been taken. We're assuming not only the police, but also the CPS prosecute wrongly half the time.
Katie
Where on earth do you get your figures from?
'We're assuming not only the police, but also the CPS prosecute wrongly half the time' - so why do most defendents plead guilty?
And what is all this nonsense about sending him for a chat? I suggest you do a little self education before you make statements like this.
'people already feel that the police won't protect them before the fact and the courts won't do anything after the fact' What people are these? You and your friends or the whole population?
Evidence, please.
Katie,
Look up ISSP programmes. http://www.youth-justice-board.g...lanceProgramme/
It's more than a 20-minute chat. For the first three months it's 25 hours per week.
Using your logic we should ban all convicted speeders because they are almost certain to have offended at least a thousand times before.
"Where on earth do you get your figures from?"
Home office website; "crime in england and wales 2005/2006" tells you the detection rates by crime.
"Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice" gives us the conviction rates per 1000 offenders by crime nicely calibrated over time.
Reported crime is 42% of actual crime according to the BCS.
"For the first three months it's 25 hours per week."
The 25 hours are filled with what, I wonder?
"there are a variety of activities including football, basketball, weight lifting, squash and netball which can be included." (Kent and Medway ISSP)
Education also features rather strongly in the suggested activities.
So apparently, they have someone keeping an eye on them and making sure they go to classes and sports groups.
That sounds more a sort of surrogate parenthood than anything that's going to particularly interfere with their social lives.
Apparently the course is so onerous that 19% of people queue up for a second referral and nearly 6% of starters are on their third go.
It certainly doesn't intervene very well -- 85% are reconvicted within two years.
So how does this stop them mugging people particularly?
Katie
You cannot take statistics and then multiply them together, that is called massaging the figures.
Brian read "Land fit for Criminals" by David Fraser - a probation officer for 20 years - he goes through these figures in depth using HMG own figures. Katie is correct
Mark
I stand by my last comment. And Bystander's point re speeding motorists is apposite.
If Katie is correct in quoting Fraser then so be it, but Mark Twain had it summed up in a nutshell.
Further, she did not answer my questions regarding her statements that appear to include sections of the population that (presumably) she does not represent - 'people' - who are they, or is this the tabloid view?
Well, Katie, your 20 minutes becomes 25 hours so you move on to attacking the content. These are children, however disturbed and disturbing their behaviour.
lies dammed lies and home office stats..
Oh and I take a dislike to the term
"violent personal robberies in the home"
* Cough burglary.
Just dont tell the media that the met's new idea is the Soco sole responce telephone reporting of burglaries.
No more Mr Policeman taking your report.
I wonder what we are all doing... oh yes homeoffice surveys..
"violent personal robberies in the home"
are, if I interpret the phrase correctly, the horrible invasions of wealthy homes by thugs who attack the residents to elicit the whereabouts of valuables.
Not just burglary - really nasty violent and terrifying crime.
" Well, Katie, your 20 minutes becomes 25 hours so you move on to attacking the content."
You can only send a couple of thousand people a year on these things -- around 8000 in 4 years; in general, probation officers have an average caseload of 100 or so offenders with community sentences to monitor. With a 35 hour working week, that's roughly 20 minutes an offender.
Since the vast majority of offenders on community sentences are not subject to intensive supervision, the average time will be around the 20 minute mark.
The exceptions do not the general case make.
If we take a powder puff attitude to 'yoof offenders' they will think crime is an easy occupation with only a little disruption.
In America there's a Sheriff who makes offenders do community work in town centres (repairs to roads, cleaning buildings etc) while wearing pink uniforms. We could do likewise and add yellow flowers and fuffy bunnies to the outfit.
Or would that infringe their human rights?
Bystander. Read and understood.
Yes a terrifing act in anyones mind.
I just wish those people above who are so quick to dismiss young offenders would spend a week in the life of an ISSP advocate (ie the adult mentor who has 3 months to get into the kids head and start to turn him around. It is immensely yet rewarding work.
ISSP is a last chance : it falls on those 15-16-17 year olds in the worst circumstances. may be with drug addictions, maybe brutalised by the environment of supposed care homes.
I represent kids a lot. If the offence is so grave that there is no option then they go to prison. public policy (correctly) demands it and magistrates impose it.
But if you read the reports and materials that I get (and the magistrates get) about these kids and you still felt that they were unworthy of an opportunity to turn themselves around then it would reflect extremely badly on you.
Yes, they do sport on the program. The children that this program deals with are marginalised. Most will have drug or drink problems, virtually all will be out of mainstream school and struggling along in the farcical 'alternative' education system that we have fo rht ebad kids (ie twice a week at the day centre), a majority are not only unqualified but illiterate.
They gravitate towards their own kind, and get to the point where they cannot socialise outside of that circle. They have time on their hands but no resources, hence crime.
In short they become part of a sub-intellectual ghetto of 15 year olds, failed by both their family and society.
And you dont think they are worth a bit of professionals time and effort to encourage them to interact into society? If you read the reports you would think we owed it to them.
or perhaps its better (as happened to those I represented a year before ISSPs were introduced) that 3 of them kill themselves with heroin overdoses following release from prison.
3 less on benefit : I think some of you would be chuffed
Commenting by HaloScan
