@ Bystander
Your comment about 'deterrence' should be broadened. 'Prevention' of crime - which the good Chief Constable is charged with - does not involve sitting on his bottom pontificating to credulous journalists about how Judges are letting the side down. He (deliberately or accidentally?) fails to recognise his role and that of the judiciary.
What steps is this senior public servant taking to ensure that criminals do not acquire lethal weaponry? Why has he failed to reduce the numbers of weapons being circulated and used on his patch - is he not up to the job? Does he believe that mandatory sentencing without consideration of aggravating or mitigating factors will resolve his difficulties? Does he understand that Judges do not determine the tariff/guidelines which are, essentially, political in origin? Has he bothered to take the matter up directly with his political masters?
Then again, is this a smokescreen for his own failures?
Given how often the CPS fails to ask for the full range of sentencing powers to be considered, the variations are hardly a surprise. When did most of us last disqualify someone from driving as a result of a shoplifting offence, in which the defendant drove to and from the venue? When did we last order forfeiture of a vehicle in a fly-tipping case? How many post-sentence ASBOs on adults have each of us imposed? When were we last asked to do these things?
Obviously, as a humble lay magistrate I don't sentence for possession of guns, but why do I not have confidence that the cases are presented as being deserving of the guideline start point?
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary constantly talk of 'deterrents' to crime. As Bystander said those who live by street cred are not swayed by deterrents and the chances of them being caught a virtually nil.
Throughout this the politicians have the attitude of 'a course of action doesn't work, so keep repeating it till it does work'.
Really the politicians have no ability for creative thought, so just keep droning out the same old cliched speeches. They believe they are fooling us into believing they are actually doing something. They don't see that the public know that doing something and achieving something are worlds apart.
This story doesn't sit well with me, in fact it makes me question some of the most dearly-held beliefs that I have.
According to the figures presented on BBC Television News last night 40% of people convicted of this offence are given a sentence of at least 5 years custody. This suggests that 60% of people convicted of this offence do not receive the mandatory sentence because of exceptional circumstances. I would question whether the word exceptional should refer to the minority rather than the majority?
Are there a list of exceptional circumstances or is this for the trial judge to rule on? Considering that the posession of an unlicensed firearm is quite obviously a serious criminal offence and that a firearm is designed specifically for causing serious harm or death, I find it difficult to predict such an exceptional circumstance as to warrant a move away from the recommended minimum sentence.
Can anyone give me any examples of an exceptional circumstance?
If the intention of the government was to make possession of a gun liable to a mandatory 5 year sentence then the law should say this. Joshua Rozenberg yesterday on the BBC pointed out that the imposition of a 5 year sentence is not mandatory, judicial discretion still remains, thank god.
Inspector Gadget has an interesting, and to my mind, wholly reasonable take on this story:
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress...-crime-scandal/
I was struck by this paragraph (headed "Conclusion") in what appears to be a Canadian student paper prepared as part of a course):
When politicians and modern proponents of deterrence impulsively demand harsher,
longer prison sentences to curb crime, they demonstrate their lack of rationality and
shortsightedness. They ignore research showing ineffectiveness, counter-productivity, and
recidivism of incarceration. Oddly, these same attributes of impulsivity, irrationality and
shortsightedness are found in ... low-self control individuals. The
only difference between them is that the politicians and proponents have political power to
satisfy their immediate gratification.
The paper is here here but is heavy reading.
Regarding deterrent, it is an old, and often quoted but none the less true fact that longer sentences do deter criminals for the simple reason that it is very hard to commit a crime from inside a prison.
A criminal (or stupid, gullible kid, the end result it the same), may not think about the potential sentence before he commits his first crime, but if he is caught and serves five years, he won't do it again for ... five years (Duh!) If he is back on the streets in eighteen months, you do the maths.
Perhaps the real issue here is that senior policemen should stick to policing and leave politics to politicians and justice to judges.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co...64375-20672737/
Headline: Gordon Brown defends judges in wake of Hogan-Howe comments
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3619907.ece
Headline: Gordon Brown urges courts to use full powers against gun criminals
It's nice to know one can rely on the press for incisive analysis and on our politicians for crystal clear comments. At least the Times had the word mandatory in quotes.
Deterrence is not something that can be achieved by long prison sentences alone, many people suggest that this is the case but I believe them to be wrong. It doesn't take recognition from a PhD to realise that most, if not all, criminals do not calculate the risk of their aprehension. They do not believe it will occur.
Having said this, I think that too many members of the judiciary are placing too much importance on the deterrent effect of sentencing and too little importance on the punishment and public protection elements. There is a public perception that sentencing in England is not as strong as it ought to be. This perception is not based simply on gun crime but is generally thought, across the range of offences, to be too weak.
I will be the first to admit that long prison sentences to not deter other criminals. However, they do serve one excellent purpose. A long prison sentence can encourage rehabilitation but most importantly it protects and law-abding public from the criminal elements of society.
I worked as a Special Constable in a coastal town that suffered from high-levels of vehicle crime. In part this was caused by inadequate policing due to budget cuts from local and central government. The main reason for such high-levels of vehicle crime was one particular 19 year old boy. We knew this because every other vehicle that was stolen held firm evidence of his involvement, such as fingerprints and DNA evidence. He usually admitted the offences and was processed in the usual way.
He had 15 prior convictions for dishonesty, theft and TWOC offences. He had received an original police caution and a range of sentences from the Magistrates' Court. Such sentences included; fines, community punishment orders, unpaid work orders and even a suspended sentence. The suspended sentence was not activated on two occassions following another two motor vehicle offences, because of exceptional circumstances, hardship caused to the family unit and his 'willingness' to cooperate with the probation services.
Meanwhile, back at police HQ the vehicle crime figures were still at high-levels despite high-visibility patrols, covert patrols and thousands of advice leaflets sent to insecure car owners, until one glorious day in the Spring. Another conviction followed, for our now 20 year old friend, his suspended sentence was activated! The Superintendent had a smile on his face for 3 whole months. For the first time since I had worked at that station the vehicle crime figures were actually below the national average. They remained at a constant level throughout the prison sentence of our friend.
Eventually (4 months later), he was released and for a couple of weeks the vehicle crime figures remained as constant as they had done. Then he started to re-offend, the figures went through the roof again and despite his vocational training from 'inside' he still left fingerprints and DNA evidence in the stolen vehicles.
Further convictions followed rapidly but custody did not. He was given unpaid work orders (again) and rehabilitation (again), the bench were of the opinion that clearly, 'prison has not worked'. On the contrary, it did. It worked perfectly. While he was inside the majority of people in that coastal town would wake up in the morning able to go to work with their car still on their own drive. It was just a shame it did not last more than 4 months.
The moral: long prison sentences protect the public.
@Blind Beak 1:26pm, re exceptional circumstances, I can think of two:
1) In a rural area, possessing a gun clearly only intended for use on animals. (For an example, see post 14 on Inpector Gadget's article "New Shock Horror Gun Crime Scandal!")
2) Hiding a "gangsta's" gun, while fearing that not to do will lead to him getting annoyed and possibly uising it on you.
@Steve 1:53 and Blind Beak 2:10- exactly. Nail hit firmly on head.
Prevention is as much part of the system as deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment.
If there's someone who is too impulsive to be deterred, and he's going around with a gun, then we're all much safer if he's prevented from doing so.
@ Nerd for Justice:
Yes, those two exceptions do seem to warrant a lighter sentence, but surely not all of the 60% of convicts have these two exception to rely on?
"Joshua Rozenberg yesterday on the BBC pointed out that the imposition of a 5 year sentence is not mandatory".
But the Judicial Communications Office statement twice uses the word "mandatory" (without quotes). A word with a precise meaning.
I can see there may well be good reasons for not always imposing a minimum five years, but I can well understand why the public are confused bythe use of this word.
Exceptional circumstances.....my grand'dad's old service revolver on its way to auction????
Maybe prison doesn't work as a deterrent, but the majority of inmates are in prison because, for them, nothing else worked either.
The first comment on this post suggests that the Chief has failed to deliver in some way. Like an Argos van perhaps? Whatever. The point is that the police are a mere instrument. We gather evidence and arrest people. That's all we do. What happens next is not in our gift. Every single thing we do on the enforcement side or otherwise, totally relies on a final, decent and meaningful result in Court. Otherwise we are naked.
"Every single thing we do on the enforcement side or otherwise, totally relies on a final, decent and meaningful result in Court."
And if you nicked everyone with an illegal gun, and the courts sent them all down for 3.5 years, then everyone would be happy. The problem is that too many illegal gun types aren't getting caught, not that they're only getting a long sentence instead of a very long one.
@ John B:
The very nature of this law (posession) makes detection by the police difficult, until the weapon is seen in public or is otherwise used.
I fail to see how the police can be accused of failing to do their job properly in this respect.
From an former insider's point of view, the police treat gun crime very seriously and always respond robustly to any live incident or indeed any information received.
Quite frankly, I think you are wrong in your assumption that everyone would be happy if courts routinely gave 3.5 year custody terms for those convicted of this offence. In fact, without the presence of any of exceptional circumstances that have already been mentioned I would be dismayed at a 3.5 year sentence.
I'm not an expert in policing, so have no idea whether or not they could do a better job at tracking illegal guns.
However, *if* it were possible to track down all illegal guns, and *if* everyone found in possession of one were to receive a 3.5 year sentence, only somebody very churlish indeed would view that as a poor outcome. It would eradicate gun crime overnight...
[in any case, to me 3.5 years does seem a bit steep for "owning a thing politicians have decided we shouldn't be allowed to own, but not harming anyone with it". But then again, I think it's outrageously barbaric to lock harmless people in jail for the posession of psychoactive plants, and apparently the hang-'em-flog-'em masses disagree with me on that one too...]
As a very junior Probation Officer in a West London-Based Probation Office, I remember going down to reception one day to interview a man carrying a big tool bag.
He had been given this bag of "tools" back by the police after having spent 3 months on remand for an unproven violent attack on a drug-dealer with a Machette.
The bag contained tools. The tools included a short samuri sword, a 12 inch Machette, A six inch hunting knife and (goodness) a small hand gun of Czech origin.
I called the police quietly and retired to watch proceedings.
There was no panic, two WPC's attended and relieved the man of his "belongings" and re-arrested him.
He spent 6 months in custody for possession of a firearm. A "piece" the police had given him themselves !
Only in England.
JVIP
The 5 year minimum sentence applies only to ADULT offenders who commit an offence under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Section 5 deals with those weapons for which only the Defence Council can grant permission (e.g. automatic weapons etc). It is therefore aimed at a very serious level of offending.
The Home Office gave guidance to judges as to what might constitute "exceptional circumstances" such as to avoid the 5 year minimum. The guidance was to the effect that only offences of a "technical nature" would amount to such circumstances.
Hence, on a fair reading of the Act and the guidance the Chief Constable is right.
Hoever, the guidance is not legally binding on the judges and they are therefore free to interpret the words "exceptional circumstances" as they see fit. They are therefore applying the law as written but as they have chosen to interpret it.
Whatever the arguments about deterrence, Parliament decided that minimum sentences are to apply in this and some other areas of sentencing. It should therefore be applied unless and until Parliament rules otherwise and the term "exceptional" should be given a narrow meaning. These are very serious offences and they are of major public concern. As such they merit a strong response.
@ Inspector Gadget:
"The point is that the police are a mere instrument. We gather evidence and arrest people."
I think the burden of complaint from most the taxpaying public is that 'you' (advisedly!) don't. If the police position is that despite arresting all of the homicidal maniacs on their patch(es) and presenting adequate evidence, the Judiciary is perversely letting most of these people go, then that is ludicrous. It is also to ignore the function of the CPS. If the police believe that Judges are too lenient then let them properly read, consider and understand the legislation and the sentencing guidelines.
Can anyone provide any statistics to show that the number of arrests for gun crime (for example) have increased, whereas the proportion of convictions arising from those arrests has gone down? Further, what proportion of those who have been convicted of gun-related criminality go on re-offend with similar crimes?
As always, it's much more complex than the sloganising (and dissimulating) Chief Constable might have us believe.
@ Chuck Unsworth:
"Can anyone provide any statistics to show that the number of arrests for gun crime (for example) have increased, whereas the proportion of convictions arising from those arrests has gone down?"
Specially, for the Merseyside area I fully expect the Chief Constable to have those statistics to hand.
@ Peter Hargreaves:
As ever, the voice of logic and reason. I concur.
"These are very serious offences and they are of major public concern. As such they merit a strong response."
No - public concern should *never ever* impact on judges' sentencing decisions. Or we'd end up hanging flashers and similar low-level weirdos if they had the bad luck to get tried the day after a high-profile child murder.
Also, it's grossly misleading of you to equate Section 5 with automatic weapons. It encompasses anything which isn't a shotgun or an airgun - I'd stake my life that there are thousands of people with granddad's service revolver lurking somewhere in their attic who're technically guilty of a Section 5 offence, and in your world would get five years' automatic pokey...
I am guessing that there have been a lot of examples of allegedly over-lenient sentences given in some of the responses above. I don't doubt that some are even justified and undoubtedly sentences are appealed both ways on a regular basis.
I am a police detective, no particular axe to grind with the Criminal Justice System. I do think that senior Police Officers are always on a hiding to nothing when they take on the judiciary in public. There are more discrete and effective channels for that sort of discourse than radio interview and web-cast.
What I do see is this; once a particular set of special circumstances or situation become known to reliably reduce sentences, the number of defendants claiming this particular set of circumstances increases. It may be something to do with the advice given by solicitors it may be a general word of mouth thing. This seems to be particularly "viral" in the related area of asylum claims where it is utterly blatant but it certainly happens in criminal cases as well.
It seems to me that when it comes to basis of plea and mitigation, the overworked judges and magistrates are not in any position to check the truth of what they are presented with and CPS / solicitors / barristers fall back on the tired old "the Crown accepts / my client assures me / I am instructed that."
My tuppence worth is that as we seem to be slowly heading towards an American style justice system, why not just get entirely honest about the process and allow proper plea bargaining before trial between CPS and defence solicitors? I know its expedient but it couldn't be any worse than what we have now could it?
And also, after an unglamorous (but generally satisfying) day of solid police work, I have been known to reflect that Prison is not about deterrence or reform, it is about containment.
If it was about deterrence, prison life would be tougher and nastier and harder. It isn't.
If it was about reform, that aspect of the work in prisons would be much better funded and professional. It is not.
Reform attempts are probably better left to non-custodial interventions . All the stats I can find on the web say that they are about as effective as prison, maybe a few points better. They are at least lots cheaper.
Prison for volume property crime and persistent lower level violent offenders is about containment. You've had your chances, you've blown your chances, time to give the rest of us a rest from you. Prisons are built, equipped and financed for basic containment because that is what they are meant to do. Form fits function.
Rant over, sorry but it hacks me off.
On the evidence one would indeed be forgiven for thinking as Nightjack does that reform and rehabilitation are not part of the purpose of prison, as they are certainly very underfunded.
However, whilst it is undoubtedly true that if X in possession of a firearm is put away for 5 years we are safer during that period, there is also a chance we would be safer after his release if some recall attempts at reform are made during those years.
Ultimately we are better served by attempting to reform criminals, even if success rates are not what we would like, whilst they are locked up, rather than simply penning them up for a period of time.
By all means lock serious criminals up for a long time, but try to make it the last time as well!
Sorry, misleading typo: second sentence should say
if some real attempts at reform
To johnb - I agree that judges and magistrates should not have knee-jerk reactions to public sentiment particlarly since such sentiment is usually presented in the press. My point in my earlier post is that it is PARLIAMENT which has decreed the minimum and Parliament is fully entitled to do so and it will take account of public concern.
Also, the whole point of the Home Office guidance was that those who committed just "technical offences" (e.g. grandad's service rifle in the attic) would not be subjected to the 5 years minimum sentence.
Please see paragraph 16 of this link:
http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov....30?
OpenDocument
@ SussexJP
Absolutely agreed. If reform / rehabilitation can be made to work in Prison then it should be attempted and properly funded. Everyone's a winner.
We then hit the arguments about short custodial sentences and how they don't leave time for any rehabilitation work. Personally I can live with that and the containment / retribution / punishment continuum where the various "walk out" options have been tried and exhausted.
@ Nightjack:
"If it was about deterrence, prison life would be tougher and nastier and harder. It isn't."
This is an old debate but - out of interest - what would you regard as appropriate toughness, nastiness and hardness? And how would such a regime be incorporated into the judicial and prison systems?
Chuck, there isn't an appropriate level. For it to be deterrent, well it would have to be pretty bloody awful. The point about the pickpockets at Tyburn in the original post is well made I think.
Unless you want to recreate AbuGhraib on a commercial basis or return to the old days of The Clink or ther Bastille, its a choice of containment or reform / rehabilitation. I think at the moment, we are doing default containment because
a) Nobody has found the magic key to reliable rehabilitation yet
b) Even if it is out there, no-one's putting enough money into the system to make it work.
As a police officer and tax payer, I would far rather be putting criminals into any process that has a good chance of reforming them. However, if I can't do that, I will settle for containment on a community respite basis.
As a mere member of the public who pays for the prisons, courts, the salaries & stipends of the judiciary and the cost of the Police - I dont really want to hear the petulant childish posturings of either side. [if you spent more time looking for guns - no, if you applied the law when we put them before you......]
What I as a member of public want, is to sleep soundly at night, secure in the knowlege that my property will still be there in the morning and my daughter was able to walk home through the streets without being accosted. I dont give a toot how you accomplish it and I am quite happy to be one of those "Lock the sods up and lose the key" brigade.
Instead, because its the criminals that are able to walk the streets without fear and certainly walk in and out of our courts without fear - it is follows that I must be able to defend myself and mine, with whatever it takes.
Certainly if my daughter/wife/mother is attacked, I will shoot the offender with grandads old service revolver from the attic - and take my chances with a jury who are just as fed-up with jurors and police as I am.
I KNOW rehabilitation does not work. A criminal knows that on average he gets caught one time in ten offences. He knows that when he is caught he will get a slap on the wrist. He knows that crime pays - and pays handsomely, so dont insult my intelligence by spouting forth on rehabilitation.
And while I am still firing on all cylinders, and I know this is off topic, but it offends me that when these pieces of excrement are doing their first short stretch after their 100th conviction, they are fed better and housed more warmly than our elderly in the community.
I want them treated worse than our pensioners!
@ Nightjack
So, is deprivation of liberty sufficient 'punishment'? Or would you advocate some additional factors? Or is the principle behind incarceration that society should be protected from a criminal (who may or may not re-offend)?
I think that in any event this ultimately becomes a discussion about the effects of imprisonment on individuals. One can well imagine some regarding five years as trivial, whereas others might consider five years as a completely crushing sentence.
If it is, as you say, a choice of containment or of reform and rehabilitation, then there are other issues. How long a sentence will ensure 'reform etc'? And how long should 'containment' be? These may be two entirely different time-scales.
The problem for any reform process is ensuring acceptable success rates. Difficult, too, to define success. But I do think that there has been an appalling underfunding of the processes of rehabilitation. The revolving door has hardly slowed.
And in passing, as you are a police officer as well as being a taxpayer, are you therefore a sort of 'self-employed' police officer?
A two pennyworth from another lay person - weren't the government recently asking the judiciary to consider forms of sentencing other than incarceration? Something to do with all our prisons being full, I seem to remember. Where would Mr Brown et al like you to put them?
@ Anonymous, 03.26.08 - 10:52 pm
"I want them treated worse than our pensioners!"
Well said that person.
Chuck..... as Nightjack was being polite I'll tell you what most of the folks I come into contact with think is an appropriate level of toughness (or whatever adjective you want to use) in relation to prison: the prisoners should be much worse off than our pensioners and members of our armed forces in terms of accomodation and diet; they should leave the place with the overriding thought 'that was awful.. I don't ever want to be here again'. Prison should not be inhumane or barbaric, but it should be absolutely awful so much so that even the 'hardest' will shudder at the thought of it, and spread the word to their criminal mates. Society needs protecting from those who want to prey on the majority.
The reason the liberal-types say prison doesn't work as the inmates re-offend on their release, is because by the time a criminal get to prison, they are a well hardened offender, and offending is just what they do. You can't persuade them to stop by woolly, softly softly, touchy feely stuff, just bang them up and give us all a rest from from them.
@rex imperator
The role of the prosecutor in England and Wales has traditionally been to remain neutral in setencing matters (unlike the US). Magistrates have a legal advisor to remind them of their inherent powers of making ancillary orders.
@ Not Long Now
Could you be a bit more specific about the changes you would like to be made? I'm confused as to how prison could be made so unpleasant as to be "awful" and "much worse" than the conditions experienced by the poorest pensioners, and yet not be "inhumane or barbaric".
Awful & much worse
http://www.mcso.org/
If Sheriff Joe is a bit full on for your tastes might I suggest the following
1. No entertainment devices at all
2. A ruthless attitude to contraband
3. Hard work
4. No association
5. Single occupancy cells
6. A 6am - 10pm day
7. No personal possessions
8. Literacy & Numeracy courses
9. No smoking
10. No personal phone calls out
11. Remission to be earned by active participation in offence reduction programmes
12. An arbitrary and petty discipline system
OK thats taken me about 2 minutes of not very deep thought. Sure I could do better with advice and more time but I'm off on holiday this morning.
Bystander wrote ... Minimum sentencing does not sit easily in the English jurisdiction ... What about maximum sentences?
Bystander wrote ... As I have said before, to be deterred you need to be capable of reasoned thinking, something that is beyond the mental capacity of so many of the people magistrates deal with. ... How often is it that this mass of offenders who are unable to help themselves assaulting, robbing and violently raping citizens are so spontaneously violent when confronting night-club bouncers? I put it to you that this is an example of a largely effective deterrent.
Well some of the comments here about the conditions of imprisonment are interesting and - plainly - depend on individual perceptions of 'awfulness' (I'd refer readers to Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall in this context). It should be recognised that a few of the measures advocated would also impact upon the families of prisoners - is this just?
What's clear is that the simple deprivation of liberty is regarded in some quarters as insufficient punishment (and possibly deterrence - although that is another debate) hence the call for harsher regimes. What does society regard as appropriate 'harshness'? Hard labour? No television? No letters or phone calls? And so on. Let's also not generalise as to the effects that some of the measures may have. Hard labour for a burly ex-navvy may be rather easier to endure than for a former accountant. Both might have been banged up for similar offences, of course.
But I think that Nightjack has put his (her?) finger on the importance of rehabilitation or education, and the bargain to be struck over offence reduction programmes. I'd add that remission should only be given on the basis of successful completions of such programmes. All we have to do now is define 'success'....
Interesting debate this. I wonder if Jack Straw and his cronies ever look in...?
One of many chains of thought prompted by postings here: one of the reasons prison is currently not made as bad as it could easily be (eg: by removal of recreational facilities and limiting association) is that the MoJ knows full-well that to clamp down on prisoners at present would provoke out-and-out rioting in Clink and make them unmanageable. In the same way as the police can only do their job with the consent of the majority of the population, prisons only function because of the co-operation of the inmates.
Any prison officers online who could comment on that thought?
@Chuck: I'd add that remission should only be given on the basis of successful completions of such programmes - this is the difficulty faced by prisoners on indeterminate prison sentences - because the prisons are too full they can't access the courses that would allow them to be released.
WCJP is I think right when (s)he refers to governing prisons by consent and it would be interesting to hear from a PO on this. From what I have heard, some prisons are close to the edge on this.
"How often is it that this mass of offenders who are unable to help themselves assaulting, robbing and violently raping citizens are so spontaneously violent when confronting night-club bouncers?"
AIUI the answer is "very often" - nightclub bouncer is not a safe profession, which is why many (not most) of the people who do it are themselves pretty terrible thugs. Indeed, the fact that people still frequently start on bouncers despite the obvious stupidity of doing so is an excellent example of why your point doesn't work...
You write: "Down in the lower courts we are obliged to impose minimum sentences in some driving cases, in particular drink-drive matters. Quite right too; road safety requires that drink drivers be dealt with severely, but even here we have the discretion to find 'special reasons' not to disqualify if the circumstances are such that this would be just."
An endorsement for Death by Dangerous Driving comes off the licence after four years, but for driving at "one over the eighty" only after eleven years! Is there any sense here?
After four years you may well still be in prison - it carries 14 years max.
john b wrote ... Indeed, the fact that people still frequently start on bouncers despite the obvious stupidity of doing so is an excellent example of why your point doesn't work... ... With what frequency? I have never seen it. Of course the use of weapons and especially firearms makes success more likely.
However, in the absence of weapons, a good big guy will beat a good little guy, both know it and it works as a deterrent to the little guy most of the time. In my opinion.
Bystander wrote ... After four years you may well still be in prison - it carries 14 years max. ... What percentage of sentences are above the maximum or below the minimum?
(I doubt that any are. As for exact stats, I haven't a clue. Let me know if you find any - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
Google "bouncer assaulted" and you'll find hundreds of such stories, most of which don't involve knives or guns.
(you'll also find plenty of people being assaulted by bouncers, in line with my previous sub-point...)
john b wrote ... Google "bouncer assaulted" and you'll find hundreds of such stories ... What is required is the number of distinct attacks and the total number of bouncers, so as to give the frequency of such attacks. What is "very often", 5% or 50% of bouncers attacked in a year by little guys in one year?
For a different example, consider boxing, which is segregated by weight and sex for the good reason that most men would beat most women and most big guys would beat most little guys.
Google does not identify the number of individual incidents, it merely identifies the number of 'reports'. Thus one widely reported incident may comprise a multitude of 'hits'. So for Heaven's sake let's not take Google as the statistical base....
Blind Beak 4:01:
The very nature of this law (posession) makes detection by the police difficult, until the weapon is seen in public or is otherwise used.
I fail to see how the police can be accused of failing to do their job properly in this respect.
From an former insider's point of view, the police treat gun crime very seriously and always respond robustly to any live incident or indeed any information received.
I'd have to disagree. When living in London, I was in a toddler playpark with our youngest child when a group of teenagers arrived and started comparing knives. One then pulled out a semi-automatic pistol. It was almost certainly real and probably a old and well-worn Tokarev by the look of it. (I'm ex-Army, a former pistol shooter and know something of small arms).
I retired to a safe distance, called the police and waited, and waited, and waited. The teenagers loaded and unloaded the pistol, cocked it, pointed it at each other and anything else that caught their eye, and generally played like the total idiots they were.
Eventually, they grew bored, had a play on the swings, smoked a few cigarettes and wandered off.
An ARV and a response car arrived a few minutes later—almost 25 minutes after I'd called. I was given quite a grilling as the teenagers were no longer there.
Finally, an officer admitted the response had been slow as the ARV had not been available earlier and so, for safety reasons, no one had been deployed until it was.
Meanwhile, the public had been at serious risk while the youths played the fool with the pistol, which is quite probably still on the streets somewhere.
I've generally been happy with the police response to incidents I've been involved with or on the fringes of, but not on this occasion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../
ncrimes128.xml
Says it all really.
So what would you do, PCM?
Send to crown in the hope that a meaningful sentence could be given.
There has to be a point when even the most liberal of people believe that enough is enough.
@ PCM and Bystander - et al!
The woman is clearly deranged. She has been banged up regularly without it apparently having any effect. Prison isn't working then, is it? What would a 'more meaningful' sentence be, given the cirumstances? A life sentence with no remission?
As I see it she needs a great deal of psychiatric intervention. Indeed, I'm surprised that she has not been Sectioned. But it is doubtful whether she would get sufficient treatment whilst in prison for several months. Is it in the court's powers to a) order that intervention and, b) ensure that treatment is carried through (to the point of non-offending)?
This all ends up at the position of imprisonment for her own good and for the benefit of society as a whole - but at what cost? Is it cheaper for society to keep an individual in a prison or in a mental hospital? Maybe it's cheaper overall for things to continue as they are....
She doesnt appear to be deranged but a heroin addict.
A very seperate thing alltogether.
@ So PCM, a heroin addict is what, exactly? Are they rational beings or are they mentally incapacitated (albeit as a result of their addictions)?
My definition of 'deranged' is 'one not capable of rational thought, confused, acting irregularly'.
Perhaps you can verify that is always the case that heroin addiction leads to this sort of behaviour - and do all heroin addicts repeatedly shoplift? I don't think that we can legitimately argue that criminality is integral to addiction, but you may disagree. However, I'd accept that there is a high level of coincidence.
I guess your view would be that addicts tend to turn to crime, but that's not completely clear unless one has accurate figures for the total number of addicts etc - and all we have is the current (inadequate) Home Office statistics. The current figure for Registered Addicts is some 60 thousand, whereas it is estimated that there are about 270 thousand heroin addicts in the UK.
My point is that this woman is clearly not a suitable candidate for the judicial system - except as a result of her criminal activities. If we are serious about reducing this person's criminality we will have to look outside of the Courts and Prisons.
@Chuck
Theodore Dalrymple (in Junk Medicine) suggests that the evidence is the other way around: i.e. criminals turn to "addiction".
This noble faith in the magic of rehabilitation has little if any basis in reality.
Hidden in her 175 convictions I would suggest that she has had many a chance to have some "psychiatric intervention".
However as the record shows, the attraction of easy money far outweighs any incentive to reform.
Giving her another chance clearly wont affect her motivation.
@ PCM
I don't think anyone here is suggesting 'another chance'. I'd agree that such a course would obviously not affect her motivation. The point is that the judicial system is unable to resolve the problem - unless you're proposing that she should be imprisoned indefinitely. If so, on what grounds?
Psychiatric intervention could arise if she were to be sectioned. And it has the doubtful advantage that she would be off the books (and streets) for the time that she is in hospital - which might turn out to be a permanent arrangement.
However, I think you may be assuming that she is of sound mind but is merely willful. You really cannot with any certainty suggest 'she has had many a chance to have some "psychiatric intervention"' unless you have evidence supporting that assumption, of course.
My contention is that she's crazy - and here we are, applying laws which will only have effect if the accused is sane. In the end though, this woman's fate will be determined by tax and ratepayers' money.
"I think you may be assuming that she is of sound mind but is merely willful."
You are assuming that this is a mental disorder.
I have met countless heroin addicts in my time and most of them are very lucid and know exactly what they area doing.
Treating them like victims does not help them.
My motivation for posting isn’t simply to reduce crime numbers, after all the simplest solution would be to give them free drugs.
A significant sentence (I know its not trendy to say it) WOULD be the best solution.
Allowed to dry out in prison on methadone whilst protecting the public. This would actually help her. Clearly treatment in the community hasn’t worked.
I can’t fathom why any person would have a problem with the above solution.
@ PCM
So, please define your concept of a 'significant sentence'. And I guess that the 'availability' of hard drugs in prisons has now been totally eliminated.
Methadone treatment has not proved effective generally, except where it used by individuals actually wishing to wean themselves off heroin. You have already indicated that her motivation will not change.
Again, has anyone here actually suggested that this woman be treated 'in the community'?
As to her relative craziness, it seems to me that anyone who repeatedly (175 times) carries out the same crime knowing that they will end up in front of the Bench is not sane, but I suppose that is open to debate. Is it common for heroin addicts to appear this frequently?
It does look as if you'd prefer to see the woman imprisoned than hospitalised.
A significant sentence is one which 1) Protects the public
2) Punishes the criminal
3) Acts as a deterrent
Clearly this does none of those things.
" it seems to me that anyone who repeatedly (175 times) carries out the same crime knowing that they will end up in front of the Bench is not sane,"
Or like I have advocated several times before, once someone believes there is no consequence they will act and behave as they want to.
"It does look as if you'd prefer to see the woman imprisoned than hospitalised."
Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/north...and/
7337192.stm
Commenting by HaloScan
