±«Óãtv

Serious criminals must be punished severely. Without a strong punitive element to a sentence potential criminals are less likely to be deterred. Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan were dangerous ringleaders who incited people to riot. Some may say that if a person's inciting leads to nothing he should be let-off, but what about attempted murderers?

When considering whether or not a particular sentence is "disproportionate" the potential impact on society of the crime is material. A person who steals, say, some bottled water from a shop during a mass riot must be treated more harshly than one who steals the water in a "normal" situation. A message must go out loud and clear that common criminals who riot and loot will have the book thrown at them.

For many of the hardened criminals involved in the rioting jail, unfortunately, is not a deterrent. It is a place of mod-cons and comforts.

Probably the four years they got for this offence was too severe. I'd imagine it will be reduced quite considerably on appeal. However, in general I don't think the sentences handed down are over the top. I had something of an argument with my other half over this a few days ago, particularly about the guy who got six months for stealing a bottle of water. She reckoned it was out of all proportion, especially as it was a first offence and nobody gets that kind of sentence for such a petty theft. I disagreed: had he done it in isolation, I would have said it was a ridiculous sentence, but he did it in the course of a riot, and to me, that makes it looting, not just theft.

In wartime, looting carries a possible death sentence, and for good reason. The military were authorized to shoot looters on sight in WWII because 100 looters could do vastly more damage to a city than a thousand bomber raid. There's a point where the boot of the state has to come down hard on the neck of offenders, and this, in my opinion, was it. After the initial flashpoint in Tottenham, nobody who took part in these riots knew or cared about Mark Duggan. They were in it for robbings own sake and nothing more. I have no sympathy, and while the four years these two losers got was excessive, even in the circumstances, if it isn't reduced on appeal, don't ask me to sign any petitions for them.

Casur1 (@ 2) -

I have no sympathy, and while the four years these two losers got was excessive, even in the circumstances, if it isn't reduced on appeal, don't ask me to sign any petitions for them.

I think your use of the word 'losers' is rather telling.

An emotional word that should have no place when discussing matters of criminal justice. One reason why I am against the jury system, by the way. The emotionalism of the general public - in other words, the "angry mob" baying for blood - should not be a factor in any verdict.

It's a sad fact that even judges are now capitulating to crude populism in their sentencing decisions. A sad day for society.

Ryan's comment about constructive restorative justice (on the other thread) is the way forward, in my view.

3. LSV
"Ryan's comment about constructive restorative justice (on the other thread) is the way forward, in my view."
***
I agree.

LSV;

"One reason why I am against the jury system, by the way. The emotionalism of the general public - in other words, the "angry mob" baying for blood - should not be a factor in any verdict."

It happens i did jury service not very long ago and encountered something like this 'baying for blood' - very unpleasant - but i was still impressed by the system itself. My feeling is that in Britain we are privileged to have a sort of "Rolls Royce" criminal justice system, but it came about, and only functions properly, in the context of an identifiably Christian society. The weight that is now placed upon it by spiralling crime (and i think that's how it can be described if you look back across the last 50 years) could be its undoing, which would be a victory for criminality, and for the often 'clapped out' morality which pervades all sections of our society.

I think I've stepped into a parallel universe, 'cos I broadly agree with LSV. Not too sure about the jury thing, though. Justice is too important to leave totally in the hands of the professionals.

My concern is this,

If the guys that incited rioting got off because no rioting happened - what happens the next time. Facebook is used as a diversionary tactic to disperse the police and concerted rioting happens elsewhere. Incitement to rioting is as bad as rioting.

I can still see the signs in American airports where they say that joking about terrorism will be treated as terrorism.

1. newlach:
"Serious criminals must be punished severely. Without a strong punitive element to a sentence potential criminals are less likely to be deterred."

You know, that's the reasoning folks here in the US use to defend the death penalty.And the usual response from the anti-death penalty groups is that "studies" show fear of punishment is not really a deterrant for criminals.
I'm kind of skeptical about those studies myself & it goes to reason that execution will surely deterr that particular criminal from future offenses.
I like the idea of restitution & possible redemption.I know some types of criminals can't be reached this way, but I think many can & should be given the chance.

LSV, if we're going to declare the use of certain words and language as 'telling' (telling of what I'm not sure), we might well examine why you think you can call public sentiment on the issue 'emotionism', as though you can just blow it off like it's nothing. Are you an elitist? Do you believe that you know something the rest of us don't? Are you cleverer than we are?

Casur1 -

So tell me now, what do you mean by the word "losers"? Is life a game? A competition? Some win and some lose? Sounds more like Social Darwinism than Christianity.

Do you think God sees these two people as "losers"? To be written off, perhaps?

In one sense, I suppose that God does call them "losers", because he calls everyone a "loser": "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'" Luke 17:10

So even good boys and girls are "unprofitable" - a liability. Not winners. Not "bringing in the bacon". Should "loss makers" be called "losers", I wonder?

Do you reckon you're a "winner"? Be careful how you answer that question, pal. It might just rebound on your own head.

"Do not judge". Does that mean anything to you....?

The principle of equality before the law is a fundamental principle of democracy and, for example, is written into the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".


This principle is clearly being breached in the UK at present, as research in Friday’s Guardian indicates. 6 months for stealing water or accepting a pair of looted shorts is ridiculous, as is the 4 year sentence for a Facebook message.

To suggest that the riots are a special circumstance and that a message needs to be sent out to deter rioters is both unjustified and counter-productive. The message that is really being sent is that the masses are being treated worse than the rich and powerful and therefore even the legal system is unfair. It simply reinforces a sense of injustice and alienation. In other words, it stores up trouble for the future.

In this context it was amusing to witness an apoplectic Michael Gove, British Secretary of State for Education, spitting blood at Harriet Harman on Newsnight for hinting that anything other than sheer criminality was at the heart of the riots. This is the same Michael Gove who claimed £7000 of posh furniture on his parliamentary expenses, including a Chinon armchair and a Manchu cabinet, and who, when caught out, simply repaid the money and continued untroubled with his meteoric political career.

Who are the looters? Are they the bankers who awarded themselves massive bonuses for investing savers’ money in dodgy deals, leading to the near collapse of the UK monetary system? Are they the tax dodgers who hire clever accountants or find foreign tax havens to avoid paying their contribution to the state? Or the greedy lawyers who feed on other people’s misery? Or are they the former restaurant-wrecking Bullingdon boys – Cameron, Osborne and Johnson – now posing as models of rectitude and, from the top of their very greasy political pole, telling the lower orders how to behave. The faults of which we so readily accuse others can indeed often be found within ourselves.

mscracker

Prisons in the UK are sometimes called "universities of crime" because first-time inmates learn a lot from the criminal godfathers. In American there are "Supermax" prisons where inmates are kept in solitary confinement. Do you know anything about how successful these prisons are at reforming inmates? In the UK we use the words "prison" and "jail" interchangeably, but I think that in the US jails house people awaiting sentence and prisons are for those who have been sentenced.

brianmcclinton (@ 11) -

We may subscribe to radically different worldviews, but I am in total agreement with you on what you wrote in this post.

LSV,

By 'losers' I am referring to their pathetic attempt to set themselves up as social visionaries and revolutionaries. I do indeed believe they should be 'written off', as you say, because they - being reasoning beings - made a moral choice which reduced them in their inherent worth. They can, of course, make a similar choice to reinstate themselves at some point, but that is for them to do.

Being from an impoverished background myself, I was, as a child, the beneficiary of charity from Church sources. I remember being acutely aware of the qualititive difference in the attitudes of these sources to that of the 'liberal' social workers and post-1968 hippy types who gradually replaced them. The church workers always showed respect to me and my family because they regarded us as the deserving poor; with the liberals, it was like being kind to a dog. Sure, they were emoting compassion all over the floor, but really, they didn't expect any better from us, just as you do not expect a dog to speak.

It was a worldview which has profoundly informed me, so if I sound like I'm being harsh on these two losers, it's because I'm not prepared to hear their excuses; I expect better from them, end of story.

12.At 00:25 19th Aug 2011, newlach wrote:
"mscracker

Prisons in the UK are sometimes called "universities of crime" because first-time inmates learn a lot from the criminal godfathers. In American there are "Supermax" prisons where inmates are kept in solitary confinement. Do you know anything about how successful these prisons are at reforming inmates? In the UK we use the words "prison" and "jail" interchangeably, but I think that in the US jails house people awaiting sentence and prisons are for those who have been sentenced."

From what I know, our prisons are very unsuccessful in reforming inmates & like UK prisons, I think inmates often come out more hardened criminals than when they went in.Occasionally there are success stories & convicts re-direct their lives.
Unfortunately, prisons generally best serve to keep the violent/dangerous criminals off the streets. The non-violent offenders would be better served by making restitution to society.

Casur1 (@ 14) -

I do indeed believe they should be 'written off', as you say, because they - being reasoning beings - made a moral choice which reduced them in their inherent worth.

It's interesting that you completely sidestepped my point about all of us being "unprofitable". Perhaps you think you're not unprofitable!

If you want to write people off, then that's your choice, but I have to remind you that Jesus said "Do not condemn and you shall not be condemned" (Luke 6:37), which can be paraphrased thus: "Do not write off, and you shall not be written off". Which, of course, implies: "Write off, and you will be written off".

So well done. You may have just earned yourself a very uncomfortable future (unless you repent). I pity you.

The church workers always showed respect to me and my family because they regarded us as the deserving poor; with the liberals, it was like being kind to a dog.

Ah yes, of course. "The deserving poor". Which suggests that there are those who should be regarded as "the undeserving poor".

Funny, but we rarely hear about "the undeserving rich". It's always the poor, who get it in the neck (and very easy for a vulnerable person to be demoted from "deserving" to "undeserving", since different rules apply to the rich and the poor). Moral cowardice being what it is, the shortcomings of the rich and powerful are often overlooked in the minds of that constituency of people who - like some of the characters in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath - think that compassion to the poor is the slippery slope to communist totalitarianism. Dontcha just love Tea Party paranoia?

Still, we mustn't take money from the righteous "winners" to give to those evil "losers"; after all, having to downsize the yacht is a hardship too great to contemplate (I almost can't bear thinking about it...)