As an upstanding citizen I am curious:
What apparent crimes are dealt with by a fixed penalty?
What apparent crimes are dealt with by a caution?
The whole thing bothers me:
Some innocent people may accept summary justice because it is less hassle than contesting it.
Some people will accept summary justice because it is preferable to going to court where the punishment may in fact be greater.
Have I got this right? If I have, then the whole notion of justice has been diminished in favour of expediency.
Got it in one Lobby!!
The headline reads:
"More than half of criminals now punished without going to court"
If they don't go to court, they're not criminals.
So, Ross, do you think that shop lifters are not criminals?
The Times article starts with a major error. "Summary justice" is not the handing out of tickets and cautions. Summary justice properly refers to the process within the Magistrates' Courts as opposed to the more formal Crown Court.
The present government has created thousands more criminal offences and the majority of them are triable only in the magistrates. Indeed, the majority of these offences are relatively minor in nature (e.g. putting dustbins out too early etc). However, many of these offences also have "penalty notice" systems attached to them and payment of the penalty within a specified timescale enables the person to avoid prosecution. Obviously, from an economic viewpoint, the costs of court proceedings have been saved.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, may very well be critical of all this but we can be sure that if he gets into power he will not insist that all these offences are dealt with in the courts. The country simply cannot afford it.
The real problem here - and this is what appears to bother the Magistrates Association - is that much more serious offences are increasingly being dealt with out of court.
The "conditional cautioning" process enables the CPS / Police to deal with cases of a quite serious nature in this way and is capable of taking many cases out of the magistrates' courts. Conditions can be attached to a caution for the purpose of (a) rehabilitating the offender or (b) ensuring that reparation is made.
The Police are "target driven" and by dealing with cases in these ways they achieve better figures.
Lobby is right. Many people do prefer to accept a caution or whatever than face court where the outcome is uncertain and the time taken to get to an outcome often far too long.
In the "Justice v Expediency" argument, expediency is winning in the many of the areas of criminality dealt with by magistrates.
Of course, the "quid pro quo" of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 scheme was to give magistrates greater sentencing powers so that they could deal with some cases which currently have to go to Crown Court. That idea seems to be staying in the long grass having been kicked there over a year ago.
The main thrust of PND's was for drunkenness offences. However, because of H & S duty of care on the police they cannot leave drunks on the street with an PND sticking out there pocket. So they have to arrest them and lock them up till sober. This hasn't really saved them any time and still takes them off the street. I don' think your actual copper on the street likes them anymore than we do.
On the matter of cautions, it is not unusual to see previous cautions listed as including assault actual bodily harm or possession of class A drugs - all serious offences which would never have seen a caution 10 years ago. So yes it is all about figures and targets and nothing about justice.
Anyone remember the Hale and Pace sketch (link anyone?!) of 2 men who liked counting things? -
"There's one."
"There's another one.."
Now change their dreary attire for Police uniforms 
"There's a crime."
"There's another one..."
Before i upset the likes of PCM, i should say i do understand it's your job and your targets are set for you. Much the same as the courts that have to sentence according to the guidelines given to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d...h?
v=dVKCJqO8qI8
Found one...
"So, Ross, do you think that shop lifters are not criminals?"
If 'they' are not convicted of theft by a court, and pay a fixed penalty discharging their liability to being prosecuted, no.
Ross
If someone commits a crime, he is a criminal, whether he is convicted for it or not. Whether or not he is brought to justice is competely irrelevant.
Unfortunately, these days, we are all criminals, as it is impossible to get though daily life without transgressing the law occasionally.
"...Unfortunately, these days, we are all criminals, as it is impossible to get though daily life without transgressing the law occasionally..."
Interestingly, we also transgress Civil Law extensively. I have just read a piece by a law professor who suggests that in a day the average person commits sufficient copyright breaches to attract a maximum penalty of $3.5bn. The maximum penalties are high, and when you consider that I have just breached Brian's copyright, and used a font without payment while whistling a pop tune you will understand how it adds up...
Why Brian, what are these laws that it's impossible not to break? I'm fairly sure I'm not a criminal, but clearly I'm just being naive.
"If someone commits a crime, he is a criminal, whether he is convicted for it or not."
Of course (for the first bit), but who is to decide whether a crime has been committed? The person accused is innocent until proved guilty and convicted.
Not at all, Ross. You are mixing up a criminal with a convicted criminal. The first is a moral matter, the second a legal one.
I am not referring to the criminal justice system. I am referring to the fact that if you commit a crime, you are a criminal.
If you murder someone & get away with it, it doesn't mean that you are not a criminal if you don't get convicted.
Excuse the double negatives.
Disgruntled - there are many laws, but the easiest area to give examples is in traffic - I would be amazed if there was a single driver who had never broken the speed limit, or nipped through the lights on 'sort-of amber but probably red if I'm being honest.' Or perhaps taken the car for an MOT a few days late? Or driven with a faulty headlight or an illegal tyre?
As a cyclist, could you hand on heart swear that you have never crept through a red light or nipped onto the pavement?
And then there's drugs - what percentage of the population uses or has used cannabis? Quite a lot of otherwise law-abiding folk.
Or gone into a pub a bought drink under the age of 18?
You get the picture.
I understand your point Brian. Mine is about the Times headline, which does not use the word 'criminals' in the moral sense, but the legal one.
To say that "more than half of criminals" are punished without going to court is clearly false under the legal definition, as no 'criminal' can be so without going to court.
It is also false under the moral definition, as taking your other point in this topic there are a great many more such 'criminals' than are reported, and therefore far fewer than half are so punished (or, indeed, face 'justice' of any description).
I do wish Peter Hargreaves would be a bit more expansive in his comments. His brevity seems so inadequate for all the wisdom he wishes to impart.
"..Why Brian, what are these laws that it's impossible not to break? I'm fairly sure I'm not a criminal, but clearly I'm just being naive..."
For a starter, you are probably driving a car which breaches some part of RTA section 2. The one I like best is the requirement for all light bulbs to be 'clearly and indelibly marked' with their wattage. So if your bulbs are marked with black ink, which can be rubbed off....
It is probably worth noting that, in his recent speech to the Magistrates' Association Conference, Jack Straw confirmed his belief in fixed penalties and conditional cautions - see
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/s...s/
sp301107a.htm
OK well I'll put my hands up to Brian's last example but as it was *ahem* years ago, surely a statute of limitations applies?
Actually, as a cyclist I can put my hand on my heart and say I've never run a red light, (but I accept I'm a minority of possibly one) - but surely the law against running red lights has been around for years, so isn't really something that applies to 'these days'.
I think my point is that it's perfectly easy not to break the law, at least if you don't have a car, as long as you're prepared to be a bit inconvenienced (don't speed, stop at lights) for the greater good.
Of course, come the compulsory ID cards, I'll be joining the criminal fraternity.
"Of course, come the compulsory ID cards, I'll be joining the criminal fraternity."
Would that it were so. The Government however intend to impose that disgrace using 'voluntary' compulsion (eg. denying you a passport) and civil penalties, rather than criminal offences.
If you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" then no-one is a criminal until a court has heard evidence and pronounced a verdict.
@Nationalist - That is unless you accept a Caution (an admission of guilt) or accept an FPN (also an admission).
These are both 'pressure' tools, used to save effort on the part of the Police and relieve them of the 'burden' of proof.
Commenting by HaloScan
