Carjacking caught live on camera in the MIdlands

54 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016

Clivey said:

Digga said:

The average, law abiding citizen seems to see only two sides to the law these days;

Being on the wrong end of it for a minor traffic infringement, dealt out by an automated system
Being the victim of a crime where the police barely seem to care

Meanwhile, the sum who are committed to a life of crime know the stats are on their side, with regard to police response, let alone detection and that if they are caught, they know the system, play it for all it is worth and do not generally fear the sentences.

This is spot on. The problem is that the real criminals simply aren't dealt with properly and it's beginning to feel like vigilantism is the only way to get justice.

Why? Crime has been falling since the mid-1990s and prisons are usually at +90% capacity thanks to the sentencing policies of the Labour government.

It's it annoying to get an NIP from a camera? Yes, but perspective is important.

Pachydermus

974 posts

112 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016

La Liga said:

Crime has been falling since the mid-1990s

You missed a word there - REPORTED. Of course reported crime has been falling if people can't be bothered to report it because they know it's a waste of time as the police won't actually do anything about it.

54 months

Thursday 26th May 2016

Pachydermus said:

La Liga said:

Crime has been falling since the mid-1990s

I didn't miss any word, because both reported crime and other crime data from sources like the CSEW reach the same conclusion.

boxxob said:

La Liga said:

hy? Crime has been falling since the mid-1990s and prisons are usually at +90% capacity thanks to the sentencing policies of the Labour government.

It's it annoying to get an NIP from a camera? Yes, but perspective is important.

Yes, the crime rate fell when Howard, as Home Secretary, changed the policy so that serious and persistent offenders were imprisoned more frequently, and for longer. Labour merely continued this policy, since it was clear that it was working.

However, we still have the situation where persistent offenders escape prison or receive sentences which are far too short (especially for theft and burglary), consequently the public remain unprotected. It's no joke to say that you are more likely to get a (longer) prison sentence for riding fast or pulling a wheelie on a motorcycle than your are by being part of an organised gang who are thieving and jacking hundreds/thousands of vehicles a year.

I don't think the latter is true. I also think external factors have a larger part to play than simple custodial sentences. The west has generally seen crime reduce since the 1990s and there are different attitudes to prison and approaches. America imprisons loads of people but have an appalling re-offending rate, whereas Norway imprisons few and has one of the lowest offending rates. So many variables.

The problem is also one of capacity over here - how much do we want to spend on prisons?

turbobloke

103,955 posts

260 months

Thursday 26th May 2016

Less serious youth crime apart, and looking at serious and/or repeat adult offenders, what's the point of looking at reoffending when it's not possible to reoffend against the general public at large or in their/our homes when such thugs are locked up for a very long period of time.

So lock reoffenders and serious criminals up for a very long period of time. The cost of their incarceration can be set against the cost of their crimes when at large and the cost of pursuing them, beyond that a small increase in tax for sufficient prison places is one of the few worthwhile claims on tax as it will increase the quality of life for so many sons and daughters of gentlefolk.

The crime rate may even fall to a 20-year low in the vicinity of the perpetrators.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

54 months

Thursday 26th May 2016

boxxob said:

How much do want to spend on the results of not imprisoning persistent offenders?

It's a good question.

A slightly provocative question would be how many jobs and economic benefits come from crime and security, too?

I do agree there certainly are people who are simply career criminals and need to be taken out of society for as much time as possible as they'll never realistically change. A minority can do a huge, and disproportionate amount of damage.

The flip side 'liberal / lefty' (PH-friendly description) view would be that things like mental health services require greater much investment to reduce crimes than prison given the volume of prisoners with mental health issues.

boxxob said:

It is difficult to compare Norway and America, especially on the subject of re-offending. America's crime rate is (and was) much higher. Whilst I agree that Norway may take a better approach to prison conditions, rehabilitation and post-prison programmes, they don't have nearly the density of criminality in to which many of the America's prisoners slip upon release. Norway is also keeping its recidivism rate low by deporting foreign nationals either before sentencing or upon release. Over 30% of the inmates in Norwegian prisons are foreign nationals, so by expelling them from the country (likewise non-Norwegians in custody: 6 out 10), the recidivism rates are going to be low:

https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminali...
http://sciencenordic.com/non-citizens-punished-dep...

It is very difficult to compare them. I was trying to make the point there are so many external variables that affect crime and disorder.

turbobloke said:

The crime rate may even fall to a 20-year low in the vicinity of the perpetrators.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Steady on, the police never touch that 'community' :P

I remember watching a programme about those awful people. It was a top investigation to convict them using a lot of mobile phone work.

turbobloke

103,955 posts

260 months

Friday 27th May 2016

La Liga said:

boxxob said:

How much do want to spend on the results of not imprisoning persistent offenders?

It's a good question.

A slightly provocative question would be how many jobs and economic benefits come from crime and security, too?

It would, but compared to considerations of the quality of life for the population at large, there's no real comparison including in monetary terms. If people had to choose between a society with far less crime and a higher quality of life - due to persistent and serious offenders being kept off the streets pretty much indefinitely - and some security industry people looking harder for business, the choice may not be as difficult as you suggest. If that's what you're suggesting.

In addition, it's not likely that people with the means to do so would stop protecting themselves, their families and their property, nor would there be any need to reduce police levels much. Can they go much lower anyway?! There would still be first offenders, minor youth crime, petty crime, crime prevention and so on. One downside would be officers with more time to listen to radio phone-in programmes so they can contact callers expressing lawful but non-pc opinions.

turbobloke

103,955 posts

260 months

Friday 27th May 2016

boxxob said:

I don't believe that we could tackle crime adequately with imprisonment alone, but the wishy-washy abstract claims that "prison doesn't work" or "prison numbers are too high" have been thoroughly proved wrong.

Nor do I believe that, having been given the task of reviewing education provision within HMYOI in the past as well as HMP, but for serious and/or repeat adult offenders the idea of focusing on rehabilitation is inappropriate. The priority should be the quality of life for everyone else. It's not compulsory to pass the prison entry test and for those adults who do, repeatedly or for serious crimes, those who pass should get their wish. For a long time.

54 months

Friday 27th May 2016

I think when you look who is in prison and what they're in prison for, it reflects who is targeted by law enforcement (the police / NCA etc).

As I said before, there are some people whom choose a life of crime as their job and the best thing for them is to spend as much time in prison as possible. For others, other approaches are likely to prevent re-offending (at less cost).

over_the_hill

3,188 posts

246 months

Friday 27th May 2016

Crime has a cost for all of us either as direct victims or not.

Increased car insurance to cover the uninsured (get the PH one in first)
Increased prices in shops to cover shoplifting.
Increased costs elsewhere to offset fraud.
How much of your Council Tax gets used to replace or repair stuff that has been nicked or vandalised instead of being spent on the services it should be.
Fire Brigade wasting time at incidents due to arson.
The list goes on.

Most crime is perpetrated by about 10% of serial offenders.

The solution to me seems simple. Add a few pence to income tax to build and fund new prisons and bang them up for a long time.
Once they are off the street the crime rate will drop and we should all see improvements in the quality of life
The few pence increase should be offset by a reduction in other prices.
Police and other services will be freed up by not wasting however many hours repeatedly dealing with the same few scumbags.

Unfortunately no politicians have the balls to grasp the nettle.

richie99

1,116 posts

186 months

Friday 27th May 2016

turbobloke said:

The crime rate may even fall to a 20-year low in the vicinity of the perpetrators.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Woefully inadequate punishment though. 11 years max, so out in 5 at most. Nicked 80m tax free so around 120m before tax. So about 24m a year gross, share a bit with his scumbag fellow animals and still quids in.

Question, would you mind spending a year in prison for £24m?

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

123 months

Thursday 25th May 2017

Another one from the Midlands - the driver had a lucky escape thanks to her quick thinking.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news...

untakenname

4,969 posts

192 months

Thursday 25th May 2017

If they come at you with weapons can you react in self defence by using your own car as one?
That link at the bottom of the article is even more messed up, females getting stabbed for their cars http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news...

I don't really feel that safe in London driving anymore with loads of feral kids swarming around on stolen mtb's, I've started locking my doors whilst driving.

xjay1337

15,966 posts

118 months

Thursday 25th May 2017

I don't understand why, looked to be a normal Scirocco, not even an R?
Worth like £8k.

I have anti hijack on all my cars - simple to mitigate, also don't go to dodgy parts of the country. Bradford, Birmingham, anywhere with a B, basically.

irocfan

40,445 posts

190 months

Friday 26th May 2017

xjay1337 said:

I don't understand why, looked to be a normal Scirocco, not even an R?
Worth like £8k.

also in the article a Kia Ceed and a Vauxhall Corsa being jacked, you really do wonder frown

hman

7,487 posts

194 months

Friday 26th May 2017

Should have driven forward after reversing - she had them lined up!

3 less car jackers in the world - result.

Too Late

5,094 posts

235 months

Friday 26th May 2017

I thought the wife was very brave. We all have insurance to cover this stuff....

I did wonder what i would have done. Thrown the keys down the road to stop the attack and focus my attention to the thief's car.

Life's too short to risk it all.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

123 months

Wednesday 27th September 2017

And another.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4924576/Th...

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

279 months