Human Rights groups say the sentences are too tough on the looters?

[Bobbisox]

I suppose when you see the two lads getting 4 yrs for inciting a riot on FB which didn't happen anyway and someone who was actually in the thick of things getting 6 months?
Do you think the HR Laws will ever be overhauled as promised, or are we being told this for appeasement ?

[jake-the-peg]

SN oh Sky news!

Don't tell me they didn't lead with the story on the Murdochs lying to Parliament!

[Bobbisox]

that as well jtp :-)

[sir.prize]

jake-the-peg: It is likely that the stiffer sentences will in fact work in the future. Many of those 'rioting yobs' were clearly and totally shocked when the magistrates accepted their guilty pleas; and then told them that they would be sentenced in Crown Court. Obviously they had been advised to expect up to a short six months. I'm sure they might think they WILL get caught next time. So stiffer sentences hopefully will be a deterrent.

[sandyRoe]

Viewers were rightly angry when they saw the damage the rioters had caused on TV. The thieves and arsonists convicted of the more serious offences do deserve long sentences. But a teenage girl taking a bottle of water hardly deserves 6 months imprisonment.
Judges are only human, too. If they decide to make examples of young people who have committed relatively minor crimes they are failing in their job.

[New Judge]

So, relevant to this question then Sandy, which authorities are abusing which powers? Bear in mind that the maximum sentence for incitement to commit riot is the same as for riot and that is ten years. Further bear in mind that their guilty plea entitles them to a third off, bringing the maximum down to six years and eight months, and they were sentenced to four years.

On a wider note, forgetting for a moment the deliberately vague and all encompassing terms of the Human Rights Act, when was the last time any of the ”authorities” in the UK took action which any reasonable person would have considered an abuse of their powers?

[Bobbisox]

I wasn't even aware that the maximum sentence a magistrates Court can give was 6 months???? is this right?

[New Judge]

Yes it is, Bobbi, unless they are passing sentence for two or more "Either Way" offences when the maximum is 12 months.

[factor-fiction]

Some of these stories such as someone getting 6 months for stealing a bottle of water are misleading. They were involved in looting and the associated damage and fear caused. They may have stolen other things but it suits the police and the looter to own up to a fairly modest theft of say a bottle of water- the looter gets a smaller sentence than they might otherwise have one and the police can chalk up another conviction.

[sandyRoe]

New Judge,
here's one example of a powerful body shown to have acted ultra vires.
http://www.thisislond...nlawfully-deported.do

[Bobbisox]

thanks NJ,
factor, I agree, staling is stealing, no matter what,

NJ will the 'handlers' be sentenced too? if found, I hope so

[Brenden]

Hi Bobbisox, I know nobody heeded the call for incitement on facebook but the two lads went to the rendervouse at the given time.

[Bobbisox]

oh did they? well in that case Brenden, they deserved punishment
Thanks for clearing that up

[sandyRoe]

Bobbisox, did they deserve 4 years, do you think?

[Bobbisox]

I don't know sandy, this is why I opened this debate up,

[Ankou]

isn't a bit like saying i got caught for speeding, £60 and 3 points, i was doing 34 in a 30.

my mate got the same for doing 45 in a 30, he should have had more points and a bigger fine.

i still broke the law, we could have both killed someone etc etc (this is all theoretical, names changed and details made up for privacy purposes etc etc)

[Davethedog]

Sandy Can I ask this - There are 50 people and because there are 50 people one decides they can break the law and that person is joined by 10 others who is joined by the rest. Would the one person have acted without the presence of the other 49? and if number 50 takes a bottle of water is she less culpable than the other 49?

I am not being argumentative but I cannot see "degerees " of guilt in this.

[Twenty20]

It's always best, I feel, to take no notice of anything that contains the words 'Human Rights'.

[New Judge]

What has been overlooked in much of the debate about the sentencing of rioters and looters is that all the offences were very seriously aggravated by the nature of the events as a whole. It is quite true that sentences should as far as possible be consistent where similar offences of equal seriousness are concerned. However there is no recent precedent for the seriousness of these offences when committed as part of the huge “group enterprise” under which they took place.

There is a world of difference between a shoplifter stealing a bottle of Vodka from Tescos and walking out with it under his coat and the wholesale thefts committed under the cloak of a riot in which many hundreds of people were involved – many of them masked and armed. Many of these had reacted to a co-ordinated “call to arms” or had seized their opportunity to loot when serious violence had taken place and it is this aggravation which obviously had a significant effect on sentencing. And my simple answer to the question is yes, they did deserve four years. They sought to seriously further destabilise their community at a time when widespread unrest was already very evident.

[New Judge]

Shame you had to go as far back as 2006, Sandy.

You will note that I said “leaving aside the HRA” and the case you mention was not determined under Human Rights Legislation. The judge said “...Removing his mother and father and sister might have amounted to an interference with the son's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ...”. In fact the matter was settled under immigration law.

My view of the HRA is simple. It is not necessary as adequate legislation exists to prevent abuses by the State. As it is framed it is so vague that it can mean almost anything to anybody and is frequently abused by minorities to circumvent laws to which the majority are subject.

Really I should have posed the question thus: “When was the last time any of the ”authorities” in the UK took action which any reasonable person would have considered an abuse of their powers and which was not or could not have been settled by legislation other than the HRA”.

[VHG]

The fact that nobody turned up for their riot does not excuse the fact their COULD have been a riot.

People COULD have been killed or badly injured, there could have been hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage.

I think some young people cant separate real life from computer games and if they put something on facebook they think somehow it is part of a "game".

Their sentences WILL be reduced, but I hope they (and anyone else planning a riot) have been shocked enough to know that next time they COULD get 4 years or more in prison.