Shoplifting From Posh Shops
Discussion
Apparently nicking stuff from posh shops isn't as bad as theft from smaller stores -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Gi...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Gi...
Tricky one.
He's got a point about the victim impact (which is taken into account in sentencing most other crimes now) but it's far harder to justify shoplifting luxury stuff (presumably) for sale than it is nicking a can of beans because your kid's hungry.
Here's a really radical suggestion:
Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
He's got a point about the victim impact (which is taken into account in sentencing most other crimes now) but it's far harder to justify shoplifting luxury stuff (presumably) for sale than it is nicking a can of beans because your kid's hungry.
Here's a really radical suggestion:
Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
Variomatic said:
Here's a really radical suggestion:
Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
Because you'll inevitably have massive inconsistency, unless there's some form of national guideline set and published by a politically impartial national central body.Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
Oh. Right.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentenc...
Variomatic said:
Tricky one.
He's got a point about the victim impact (which is taken into account in sentencing most other crimes now) but it's far harder to justify shoplifting luxury stuff (presumably) for sale than it is nicking a can of beans because your kid's hungry.
Here's a really radical suggestion:
Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
Yeah, great idea, because nobody will ever choose to punish someone more because they're "posh" or richer than them will they He's got a point about the victim impact (which is taken into account in sentencing most other crimes now) but it's far harder to justify shoplifting luxury stuff (presumably) for sale than it is nicking a can of beans because your kid's hungry.
Here's a really radical suggestion:
Why don't we set up a system where impartial and experienced people can look at the facts of each individual case to decide what punishment is warranted - given all the circumstances of victim and wrongdoer - and let them make that decision without political bloody meddling!
TooMany2cvs said:
Because you'll inevitably have massive inconsistency, unless there's some form of national guideline set and published by a politically impartial national central body.
Oh. Right.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentenc...
Genuinely - how long do you think the magistrates take pondering those questions? Not a dig - but in my humble experience they get a guilty plea, spend 10 seconds talking to themselves and then give a sentence for minor stuff. Oh. Right.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentenc...
Now if you are going to look into things properly the magistrates courts would fall apart. Taking the amount of time required would cause the whole system to collapse. It's just the reality of the situation.
photosnob said:
Genuinely - how long do you think the magistrates take pondering those questions? Not a dig - but in my humble experience they get a guilty plea, spend 10 seconds talking to themselves and then give a sentence for minor stuff.
Precisely because it's very formulaic and tightly defined. Base plus aggravating minus mitigating = sentence. Bish-bash-bosh. Next.LoonR1 said:
Possibly, although it's not clear and the suggestion is there that current sentencing is dictated by politics over what the layman's sentence would be.
Not quite that. The problem is that the layman's sentence is exactly what politicians chase because it's a vote winner. But the layman's sentence is often ill informed, reactionary and counter-productive (death penalties, house-burnings for paediatricians mistaken for pederasts, public floggings for mobile phone drivers and so on).
That's not surprising because the layman is inherently emotional about these things. But justice is supposed to be devoid of emotion, because it needs be to remain impartial. The courts, with the help of the sentencing council, do a remarkably good job of not jumping on the latest outrage bus and that's exactly how it should be.
My real objection is to politicians on either side of the house jumping in with "helpful" suggestions like this just before election time. Perhaps debate is warranted but the timing suggests it's purely political
Variomatic said:
Not quite that.
The problem is that the layman's sentence is exactly what politicians chase because it's a vote winner. But the layman's sentence is often ill informed, reactionary and counter-productive (death penalties, house-burnings for paediatricians mistaken for pederasts, public floggings for mobile phone drivers and so on).
That's not surprising because the layman is inherently emotional about these things. But justice is supposed to be devoid of emotion, because it needs be to remain impartial. The courts, with the help of the sentencing council, do a remarkably good job of not jumping on the latest outrage bus and that's exactly how it should be.
My real objection is to politicians on either side of the house jumping in with "helpful" suggestions like this just before election time. Perhaps debate is warranted but the timing suggests it's purely political
I think we're broadly in agreement. The problem is that the layman's sentence is exactly what politicians chase because it's a vote winner. But the layman's sentence is often ill informed, reactionary and counter-productive (death penalties, house-burnings for paediatricians mistaken for pederasts, public floggings for mobile phone drivers and so on).
That's not surprising because the layman is inherently emotional about these things. But justice is supposed to be devoid of emotion, because it needs be to remain impartial. The courts, with the help of the sentencing council, do a remarkably good job of not jumping on the latest outrage bus and that's exactly how it should be.
My real objection is to politicians on either side of the house jumping in with "helpful" suggestions like this just before election time. Perhaps debate is warranted but the timing suggests it's purely political
TooMany2cvs said:
bad company said:
I wonder what he REALLY said?TooMany2cvs said:
bad company said:
I wonder what he REALLY said?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff