Riots prison sentencing

[Amandac]

I was just wondering what others thought of the strict prison sentences given to the London rioters?

Do people think it is right to go to jail for 4 years for posting something on facebook?

[supertom]

I remember hearing the new commissionaire saying they should fear the police, England have gone for the hard approach and I think it will come back to bite them, they've refused to look at the real issues underneath. Even recently with all those A-level students missing out on uni places, the sense of worthlessness is the issue and its only getting bigger. Once in the system its hard to get our and England have just created an entire generation of criminals by doing this.

In saying that those people did break the law this is the justice system.

[Amandac]

I agree with this completely - most of those who 'joined in' the rioting were not necessarily involved with criminal activity prior the event. It is proven that when in jail, many prisoners learn the 'tricks of the trade' so to speak, and will learn new ways of committing crime, and getting away with it. Surely sending them to jail for such a long time will only encourage them to learn more about criminal activity that they may have never been involved in.

Don't get me wrong they need to be punished and shown that what they have done is not acceptable, but finding the right way I think is very difficult

[Peterw]

This is a hard one beacuse there are some obviously over the top sentences and also inconsistency between different courts.

Right now the general public want to see tough justice and any leniency would be "political suicide" (although I can see labour being lenient).

Also the message has to go out that this is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

The problem with the 'worthless' generation is also the result of a nanny state that has gone for leniency and trying to understand instead of tough punishment. There is no lack of opportunity in the UK, there are thousands of unfilled apprenticeships, we have an army of Eastern European workers who are doing the jobs the unemployed british are too lazy to do because up until now they could live on benefits.

I lived on them for a while until I decided I wanted a proper life. I went to the benefits office, asked for a training course and now (10 years later) I'm a contractor in the finiancial IT sector approaching a 6 figure income. Anyone who wants this can do it, there is no lack of opportunity, only excuses and entitlement mentality.

A big change is needed to deal with the 'untouchable chav' culture, it should be gradual but the riots have forced a more immediate response. Tough justice is a good start. They should all be banged up and forced to read "Rich dad Poor dad" IMO.

I have 0 sympathy for anyone that took part in those riots. Letting people off is why we're in this situation in the first place. People have to be responsible for their actions. If you walk through a riot and see people looting you have a choice whether to join in or not. Your decision is your responsibility.

Choose well because your life situation is a result of your choices.

[ZephyrusX]

I more or less agree with supertom. I've seen no proof that deterrence and a 'get tough on crime' approach works. But, perhaps that is besides the point. I suspect politicians are getting involved with this 'get tough' approach in order to take advantage of the media, which sensationalizes criminal activity, and the proportion of the population that favours a 'get tough approach' for what ever reason. I don't always think that this is a rational thing. I think many people know that deterrence doesn't work, but they want the penalization system simply for that purpose - to punish. It has nothing to do with decreasing future criminal behaviour.

But there is a difference between politicians that merely play up to populations in order to win favour and politicians that exercise genuine leadership insofar as they try to solve problems even if it means alienating some of the population. Whether or not they will be elected again is a different matter though!

In Canada, the number one factor that reduces criminality in young offender populations is simply maturation. You can probably generalize this across different countries. If you get a job, have a 'household' to maintain, have a family to care for, you simply stop your criminal behaviour. Rather than merely delaying the problem by throwing youth in jail, politicians could get creative, take advantage of this very simple observation and come up with a more meaningful decision. I doubt they will though as I believe the matter is more political rather than utilitarian.

Originally Posted by Amandac

I agree with this completely - most of those who 'joined in' the rioting were not necessarily involved with criminal activity prior the event. It is proven that when in jail, many prisoners learn the 'tricks of the trade' so to speak, and will learn new ways of committing crime, and getting away with it. Surely sending them to jail for such a long time will only encourage them to learn more about criminal activity that they may have never been involved in.

Don't get me wrong they need to be punished and shown that what they have done is not acceptable, but finding the right way I think is very difficult

[metamorph]

[QUOTE=supertom;967550]I remember hearing the new commissionaire saying they should fear the police, England have gone for the hard approach and I think it will come back to bite them, they've refused to look at the real issues underneath.

It is a tough one. If you are lenient on them, it invites even more riots and stealing, because you send out the message: if you are lucky, you walk away with a new ipad and a 60'' TV, if you are unlucky and they catch you, you will give you a "reprimand"...

Originally Posted by supertom

Even recently with all those A-level students missing out on uni places, the sense of worthlessness is the issue and its only getting bigger.

I don't think having your A-levels should guarantee you a uni place (I am not sure if you meant "straight A students" ?)

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I more or less agree with supertom. I've seen no proof that deterrence and a 'get tough on crime' approach works. But, perhaps that is besides the point. I suspect politicians are getting involved with this 'get tough' approach in order to take advantage of the media, which sensationalizes criminal activity, and the proportion of the population that favours a 'get tough approach' for what ever reason. I don't always think that this is a rational thing. I think many people know that deterrence doesn't work, but they want the penalization system simply for that purpose - to punish. It has nothing to do with decreasing future criminal behaviour.

But there is a difference between politicians that merely play up to populations in order to win favour and politicians that exercise genuine leadership insofar as they try to solve problems even if it means alienating some of the population. Whether or not they will be elected again is a different matter though!

In Canada, the number one factor that reduces criminality in young offender populations is simply maturation. You can probably generalize this across different countries. If you get a job, have a 'household' to maintain, have a family to care for, you simply stop your criminal behaviour. Rather than merely delaying the problem by throwing youth in jail, politicians could get creative, take advantage of this very simple observation and come up with a more meaningful decision. I doubt they will though as I believe the matter is more political rather than utilitarian.

If you were in a position to do this what would you come up with instead?

[supertom]

Originally Posted by metamorph

All this makes me wonder what happen to the police officers that beat up the 16yo girl...


I don't think having your A-levels should guarantee you a uni place (I am not sure if you meant "straight A students" ?)

I think I got this one wrong, I was thinking that there was a record number of A* grades at the A-levels so it meant that even the smart students were missing out. I honestly thought the smart kids would be less interest in going to university made their are getting their advice from the out-dated generation.

[xtremelady]

The public are fickle; the government may whilst sentiments are volatile over the riots believe they can win favour with the public by imposing such harsh sentences. In truth after the dust settles and media questions the actions imposed, this will bite them in the ass. The public will eventually question the fairness of the sentencing and also the cost of doing so to the tax payer. I see it as another foolish decision made by a government who has made many in the short time they have been in power.

Conditions and living standards are deteriorating gradually and I feel discontentment will rise – the sentencing has the potential to fuel rather than dissuade future demonstrations, people will just be more careful not to post openly when doing so.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by xtremelady

The public are fickle; the government may whilst sentiments are volatile over the riots believe they can win favour with the public by imposing such harsh sentences. In truth after the dust settles and media questions the actions imposed, this will bite them in the ass. The public will eventually question the fairness of the sentencing and also the cost of doing so to the tax payer. I see it as another foolish decision made by a government who has made many in the short time they have been in power.

Conditions and living standards are deteriorating gradually and I feel discontentment will rise – the sentencing has the potential to fuel rather than dissuade future demonstrations, people will just be more careful not to post openly when doing so.

Nah - the mess we're in is because of the previous government, the coalition are fixing it which is apparent in the economy and markets. Unfortunately the measures needed are not nice and of course are going to be unpopular. The way I see it is there are two problems behind this, the welfare state and the nanny state

Being soft on crime has resulted in what we saw in the riots. The nanny state has created people who know that they can commit crime and get away with a very light punishment. They have no sense of right and wrong.

If you don't live in the UK and haven't actually experienced chav culture first hand then you really are not qualified to be rationalising it. We've tried being nice to them and going easy on them and as we all just saw it clearly does not work.

The welfare state has resulted in people (from all generations) choosing to live on benefits as a career choice because the last government made that possible. Meanwhile the jobs are being done by immigrants with a better work ethic and the drive to become successful. There is no lack of opportunity, it's out there alive and well.

It's not a generation thing either, it's a small segment of society who think they're entitled to something for nothing because eveyone else owes them a living.

We all want to be free to do what we want without having to spend the majority of our time working while having enough money to experience life to the full. That option is available via the following routes:

1. Being born into money
2. Crime
3. Becoming financially free

Option 1 is not there for 99% of the population, option 2 is there but has consequenses if you make that choice. Option 3 is also there and has no adverse consequenses, it's a long and steep path and 99% of people don't have the stamina and resilience for it.

If you want to make something of your life you've got to do what you've got to do, however "worthless" and "below you" it makes you feel. FFS I washed dishes in a restaurant when I was that age because I needed a job - any job.

Stop blaming the government/other people for your life situation. You won't get anywhere until you accept total responsibility, figure out what you need to do to get where you want to go then start putting one foot in front of the other.

[Midnite]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Stop blaming the government/other people for your life situation. You won't get anywhere until you accept total responsibility, figure out what you need to do to get where you want to go then start putting one foot in front of the other.

I agree with this.

I also agree with the harsh punishments being handed down to rioters. I used to work in a country where the police could legally jail you for up to three weeks without any evidence, or consideration given to your family. The population fell in line. These rioters destroyed the reputation of a country for weeks on-end, where consistent negative publicity kept showing how 'London was burning down'. People died, and everybody who was standing in the streets like a prick is respnsible for that.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Midnite

I agree with this.

I also agree with the harsh punishments being handed down to rioters. I used to work in a country where the police could legally jail you for up to three weeks without any evidence, or consideration given to your family. The population fell in line. These rioters destroyed the reputation of a country for weeks on-end, where consistent negative publicity kept showing how 'London was burning down'. People died, and everybody who was standing in the streets like a prick is respnsible for that.

what magical country was this?

[Midnite]

Originally Posted by supertom

what magical country was this?

haha UAE

[Peterw]

Just saw this on facebook and thought it quite apt:

Breaking news: The pity train has derailed at the intersection of suck it up and move on and crashed into we all have problems, before coming to a complete stop at get the hell over it. Any complaints about how we operate can be forwarded to 1-800-waa-waaa. This is Dr. Snifle reporting live from quitchur bitchin.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Just saw this on facebook and thought it quite apt:

ahhh no.

It wasn't until I was 18 that i got the concept of Responsibility, I wouldn't surprised if these guys didn't know either. The ALL point of a government IS for the well-being of its citizens so i don't think the people are overstepping their boundaries.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by supertom

ahhh no.

It wasn't until I was 18 that i got the concept of Responsibility, I wouldn't surprised if these guys didn't know either. The ALL point of a government IS for the well-being of its citizens so i don't think the people are overstepping their boundaries.

This is the crux of it. I didn't quite make it to my neighbourhood (but we could hear the sirens) but I never want to try and go to sleep with a frying pan at the ready next to the bed ever again..

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Peterw

This is the crux of it. I didn't quite make it to my neighbourhood (but we could hear the sirens) but I never want to try and go to sleep with a frying pan at the ready next to the bed ever again..

by overstepping my boundaries I meant the people blaming the governments, I dont think anything is wrong with that on a social level.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by supertom

by overstepping my boundaries I meant the people blaming the governments, I dont think anything is wrong with that on a social level.

Not overstepping boundaries - I blame Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for everything, even the weather

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Not overstepping boundaries - I blame Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for everything, even the weather

David Cameron escapes your wraith but the weather has been quite good with him His net-worth is 30mil (just thought I'd include this)

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by supertom

David Cameron escapes your wraith His net-worth is 30mil (just thought I'd include this)

He's no angel either - however counter to the 30 mil thing, he's dedicated his life to the most busy and stressful job in the country. I wouldn't be doing that with 30M!

At least they are fixing the economy however painful and unpopular we'll hopefully avoid going the way of Greece/USA/Italy/Spain/Portugal/Ireland etc.

But "Call-Me-Dave" is far from perfect as well. As long as i can get on with my life, plan and purpose unimpeded I'll eb happy!

[xtremelady]

Originally Posted by Peterw Not overstepping boundaries - I blame Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for everything, even the weather

Mmm so you do blame the government for the current situation – just not the current government to which you are bias towards. You do cheer their corner rather well.

Stop blaming the government/other people for your life situation. You won't get anywhere until you accept total responsibility, figure out what you need to do to get where you want to go then start putting one foot in front of the other.

I accept responsibility for my own life and actions; I will not accept the responsibility of the actions of others.

I did not mention that there is a problem that sentences are unjust due to harshness – but due to inconstancy. There is a difference.

I am currently doing a degree in criminal behaviour and this means understanding the motivation and processes into it. What makes Britain great? I like to think it is our sense of justice and openness to other peoples and ideas.

being soft on crime has resulted in what we saw in the riots.

As for being soft on crime, I do agree – however this is not going to change and the cutbacks to policing and prisons etc….well let’s just say this will be the era of the criminal. Not enough prisons anyway, and the other point is - how much does it cost the taxpayer per prisoner?

If you don't live in the UK and haven't actually experienced chav culture first hand then you really are not qualified to be rationalising it. We've tried being nice to them and going easy on them and as we all just saw it clearly does not work.

Chav culture? Perhaps I am showing my age lol no idea what you are on about, please explain? Perhaps I should ask my son about that one, I am sure I have heard the term.

I do live and work in the UK, now that I am in uni, this equates to about 60hrs + a week. I started working at 14 in KFC, My son has applied to all the local fast food places and failed to get a part time job (he is studying atm) due to the amount of applicants. Our own experiences really do not apply in the current climate.

The industrial revolution I believe created the so called nanny state . (Previously people worked on their farms took care of their own family’s). This changed in needing workers for the factories, the workers contributed a proportion of their pay to the government to take care of their elderly etc. as working in the factories meant they no longer had the time or ability to do so.

So an individual who has worked for 20years contributing to the system and NI payments should not be entitled to help should they fall out of work. Same goes for pensioners I guess? If what you term the welfare state is to be effectively be done away with – then taxation should be abolished all together.

[Peterw]

Mmm so you do blame the government for the current situation – just not the current government to which you are bias towards. You do cheer their corner rather well.

I don't have any complaints about my current situation - I'll keep building up regardless of who's in power and whatever roadblocks they put in my way I'll get around them. This lot are more friendly to my type of business (contracting) than the last lot. Also the last lot are responsible for the spending cuts we're having now, current lot are just implementing them.

The cuts thing is a tough one because we can either not have them/have them less and end up like Greece/US/Italy etc who are now having much worse forced austerity measures. What would you rather have?

BBC News - Greek government austerity measures

As for being soft on crime, I do agree – however this is not going to change and the cutbacks to policing and prisons etc….well let’s just say this will be the era of the criminal. Not enough prisons anyway, and the other point is - how much does it cost the taxpayer per prisoner?

This is a good point, also how much is the cost of all the damage they did. I think the authorities should come up with a way that everyone convicted of rioting should work off the cost of the cleanup/insurance claims etc. Maybe they could find a way for prisoners to work off the cost of keeping them there as well - there is an opportunity here for people who break the law to actually give back to the system and not be more of a drain on it.

Chav culture? Perhaps I am showing my age lol no idea what you are on about, please explain? Perhaps I should ask my son about that one, I am sure I have heard the term.

A chav (pronounced /ˈtʃæv/ chav) is a stereotype of certain people in the United Kingdom. Also known as a charver in Yorkshire and North East England[1] "chavs" are said to be aggressive teenagers and young adults, of working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency.[2]

Chav - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do live and work in the UK, now that I am in uni, this equates to about 60hrs + a week. I started working at 14 in KFC, My son has applied to all the local fast food places and failed to get a part time job (he is studying atm) due to the amount of applicants. Our own experiences really do not apply in the current climate.

Sorry to hear that, has he looked into apprenticeships or internships? What's he studying?

Become an Apprentice - Apprenticeships - Opening doors to a better future

So an individual who has worked for 20years contributing to the system and NI payments should not be entitled to help should they fall out of work. Same goes for pensioners I guess? If what you term the welfare state is to be effectively be done away with – then taxation should be abolished all together

I think an individual's benefit entitlement should be pegged to how much NI they've paid - that's the whole point of it isn't it.. This would weed out the genuine unemployed from the career benefit claimants. Remember when the cuts were first announced and there was all that hoo-ha about how a family living on benefits were on a lot of cases better off than a family who worked?

[xtremelady]

The cuts thing is a tough one because we can either not have them/have them less and end up like Greece/US/Italy etc who are now having much worse forced austerity measures. What would you rather have?

PeterW, I do agree we need cutbacks, I just do not think they need to be this severe and this fast. More gradual cuts would allow the private sector to catch up and create opportunities to offset this necessity. I worry what cutbacks will mean for our safty, health and the elderly who have contributed to the system.

Already there is talk of another credit crunch and greater unemployment, unemployment is a drain on the system (and I am not referring to those who are work shy – there have always been these types of individuals – however they are not the ones now filling the ranks of the unemployed). The cut backs are causing the economy to stumble, thus are to my mind self-defeating – whatever they think they will make - will be taken up in job seekers.
As I have mentioned the work shy have always been there but are small in number compared to those having always worked and now finding themselves out of work- so even if you do penalise the work shy this will not go very far in offsetting the problem.

Sorry to hear that, has he looked into apprenticeships or internships? What's he studying?

He has recently finished his AAT level 3 in accounts. Original plan was to work in accounts over 4 days so he could study his AAT level 4 which only requires part time study. When he was unable to do so – rather than sit on his backside he has now applied for 3 A levels in business, law and again accounts. Thought he could at least find something one or two days a week in a fast food place – alas so far this has also been impossible.

I think an individual's benefit entitlement should be pegged to how much NI they've paid - that's the whole point of it isn't it.. This would weed out the genuine unemployed from the career benefit claimants. Remember when the cuts were first announced and there was all that hoo-ha about how a family living on benefits were on a lot of cases better off than a family who worked?

I do think this was exaggerated by the government and that the amount of people who were better off than those working a very tiny number in comparison to all those on benefits. If I remember correct the cost of their house was taken into account and this in some cases was over and above what a normal working family could afford. The government then quite rightly imposed a maximum housing benefit allowance which (I am not sure the exact amount - I am working from memory) affected only about 4000 people.

[James Fletcher]

On the topic of welfare another Willy Wonka scene comes to mind, where the Everlasting Gobstoppers are being handed out.

Veruca: Hey! She's got two! I want another one!

The politics of envy.

"I worked soooo hard doing X. Why shouldn't them over there not have to do X too!"

Don't get me wrong, I will support the many positives of self-sufficiency over the many pitfalls of state dependency any day. But I think that if people living off of welfare upsets some "armchair pundits" so much, then they should actually get off their butts and do something themselves! Because complaining about the actions of another is not taking personal responsibility, and neither is complaining about the government, because spending is how they win elections. Tony, Gordon, David, all of them.

If you think young people should get off welfare, then volunteer to give free information seminars to do just that! Give them job searching advice, tell them how to get into certain industries, have guest speakers who gained employment by moving to a new area. The main problem with many of them is they don't have a clue about any of that stuff, you could help them.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

On the topic of welfare another Willy Wonka scene comes to mind, where the Everlasting Gobstoppers are being handed out.



The politics of envy.

"I worked soooo hard doing X. Why shouldn't them over there not have to do X too!"

Don't get me wrong, I will support the many positives of self-sufficiency over the many pitfalls of state dependency any day. But I think that if people living off of welfare upsets some "armchair pundits" so much, then they should actually get off their butts and do something themselves! Because complaining about the actions of another is not taking personal responsibility, and neither is complaining about the government, because spending is how they win elections. Tony, Gordon, David, all of them.

If you think young people should get off welfare, then volunteer to give free information seminars to do just that! Give them job searching advice, tell them how to get into certain industries, have guest speakers who gained employment by moving to a new area. The main problem with many of them is they don't have a clue about any of that stuff, you could help them.

I think they can do what they want - within the law. As long as I'm not expected to pay more tax toward it.

The government will do what they're doing and people will adapt or not and sink or swim.

I'm not going to expend any more thought on this any more, I'll just keep getting on with what I'm doing and let people deal with it however they will - as long as it doesn't affect me and my plans. If you expect me to pay for you I'll find a way (legally) not to. If you break down my door you'll get a frying pan in the face.

I'm ready to move on from this now

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Peterw

I blame Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for everything, even the weather

Too young to blame it on Thatcher, then?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Amandac

I was just wondering what others thought of the strict prison sentences given to the London rioters?

Do people think it is right to go to jail for 4 years for posting something on facebook?

The people arrested for posting on Facebook are only the ones who were posting and trying to organize a riot in a certain place or with certain people.

They weren't just "talking about" the riots; they were trying to incite one (which is illegal).

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Too young to blame it on Thatcher, then?

I blame Reagan.

[Peterw]

Today might turn into 'Blame Bernanke' day - or not..