Current Affairs Race wars, neo-nazis and other unpleasantness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody is refuting the example you give.

They'll be ball park in terms of sentencing.

Crimes at riots, aren't.

I think the state go to far and push it too much. I think they do so not out of benefit/value to society, but for themselves.

Again - the examples from 2011;
  • a twenty- three-year-old with no prior convictions sentenced to six monthsʼ imprisonment for stealing £3.50 worth of bottled water
  • a twenty-two-year-old sentenced to sixteen months for stealing ice cream;
  • a forty-eight-year-old sentenced to sixteen months for stealing doughnuts.
We'll see similar.
Good. If you loot under the pretence of ‘saving the kids’ then you deserve a few months in jail, whether that’s a iPhone or Greggs sausage roll
 
Nobody is refuting the example you give.

They'll be ball park in terms of sentencing.

Crimes at riots, aren't.

I think the state go to far and push it too much. I think they do so not out of benefit/value to society, but for themselves.

Again - the examples from 2011;
  • a twenty- three-year-old with no prior convictions sentenced to six monthsʼ imprisonment for stealing £3.50 worth of bottled water
  • a twenty-two-year-old sentenced to sixteen months for stealing ice cream;
  • a forty-eight-year-old sentenced to sixteen months for stealing doughnuts.
We'll see similar.

“Other offences committed within incidents of riot:

Where sentencing other offences committed in the context of riot, the court should treat the context of the offending as a severely aggravating feature of any offence charged.”
 
Proportionality is why these sentences are so steep though - stealing in those circumstances (looting during a riot) is not the same as doing it in a Tesco when everything is calm.

Likewise if you stoved someone’s head in with a brick during a riot, you’d get more sentence than someone who did it in normal times.
Exactly, it's not like your average everyday car vandal was just trying to go about his usual business but was inconvenienced by the rioting and thought "ho hum, I best just crack on, I've got car windows that need smashing".
 
I wouldn't have been releasing violent criminals early.

Just weeks ago Starmer was doing exactly that.
Government said specifically those serving time for violent of sexual offences would not be released early.


"Sentences for serious violent offences of four years or more, as well as sex offences will be automatically excluded, and, in an important distinction from End of Custody Supervised Licence scheme, the early release of offenders in prison for domestic abuse connected crimes will also be excluded. This will include:

  • stalking offences
  • controlling or coercive behaviours in an intimate or family relationship
  • non-fatal strangulation and suffocation
  • breach of restraining order, non-molestation order, and domestic abuse protection order"
 

“Other offences committed within incidents of riot:

Where sentencing other offences committed in the context of riot, the court should treat the context of the offending as a severely aggravating feature of any offence charged.”

So as I said then on the post you've quoted when I said "They'll be ball park in terms of sentencing. Crimes at riots, aren't"

A riot is anymore than 12, btw. Not a lot, really.
 
So as I said then on the post you've quoted when I said "They'll be ball park in terms of sentencing. Crimes at riots, aren't"

A riot is anymore than 12, btw. Not a lot, really.
Mate come on, we both know there were significantly more than 12 at all of the riots over the weekend.

Yeah, on the face of it, it seems very harsh to get 6/12/16 months for stealing a bottle of water or some donuts, but that has nothing to do with politics. It’s the way sentencing works in these cases.
 
Mate come on, we both know there were significantly more than 12 at all of the riots over the weekend.

Yeah, on the face of it, it seems very harsh to get 6/12/16 months for stealing a bottle of water or some donuts, but that has nothing to do with politics. It’s the way sentencing works in these cases.

It has everything to do with politics mate.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.
 
Government said specifically those serving time for violent of sexual offences would not be released early.


"Sentences for serious violent offences of four years or more, as well as sex offences will be automatically excluded, and, in an important distinction from End of Custody Supervised Licence scheme, the early release of offenders in prison for domestic abuse connected crimes will also be excluded. This will include:

  • stalking offences
  • controlling or coercive behaviours in an intimate or family relationship
  • non-fatal strangulation and suffocation
  • breach of restraining order, non-molestation order, and domestic abuse protection order"

There was some exceptions, but;


  • On Friday, Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, will announce measures that would free criminals, including some convicted of violent offences, who have served 40 per cent of their sentences
  • It will include criminals convicted of violence who have been jailed for under four years, but exclude those serving longer sentences for more serious violence
^ So yes, Starmer was releasing violent criminals just weeks before.

Let's not replace them, in my view, with a woman with no convictions who nicks some water for 16 months.
 
It has everything to do with politics mate.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.
I think we’re best off agreeing to disagree here mate.

My understanding is very much that the legal process of the courts is carried out independently of the House of Commons.

Obviously changes to laws go through parliament, but at this stage they seem to be being charged and sentenced within the existing legal framework.
 
There was some exceptions, but;


  • On Friday, Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, will announce measures that would free criminals, including some convicted of violent offences, who have served 40 per cent of their sentences
  • It will include criminals convicted of violence who have been jailed for under four years, but exclude those serving longer sentences for more serious violence
^ So yes, Starmer was releasing violent criminals just weeks before.

Let's not replace them, in my view, with a woman with no convictions who nicks some water for 16 months.
Least any potential water stealer will most probably only serve 40% of their sentences
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top