ChatterBank0 min ago
Lord Judge
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the purpose of the statement was to clarify that the fact that only having items of low economic value stolen should not mitigate a sentence of burglary.
I certainly don't see any implication that offences against property such as burglary should be seen as commensurate with offences like rape.
I think a lot of rape victims might find Geezers opinion rather upsetting
I certainly don't see any implication that offences against property such as burglary should be seen as commensurate with offences like rape.
I think a lot of rape victims might find Geezers opinion rather upsetting
I think I see Geezer's point. He would like to see burglary sentences increased in line with rape - rather than to belittle the crime of rape. In some respects I agree with him, personal violation and violation of your secure and safe environment, your home, could have very similar long-term consequences for the victim.
It may not be a physical violation but mentally it's up there. I know of cases where people have had to move after a burglary as they could not stand the thought of some sub human pond life rifling their private things and generally violating their home. I meant no offence to actual rape victims I was merely drawing a parallel.
I don't think there is a real parallel there. It's purely metaphorical.
One of the most important ideas of any justice system is that some crimes are seen are worse than others and should therefore attract longer sentences.
I've been burgled and it's not nice but it's nowhere near as serious as rape and you have to keep a sense of proportionaly.
One of the most important ideas of any justice system is that some crimes are seen are worse than others and should therefore attract longer sentences.
I've been burgled and it's not nice but it's nowhere near as serious as rape and you have to keep a sense of proportionaly.
Burglary is a more serious than ordinary theft and it's good to see Lord Judge saying so and explaining that heavier sentences are appropriate.
Over the last thirty or forty years there's been a trend away from passing heavy sentences on persistent or professional burglars. Back in 1970 I saw a case of a profesional who was caught by police having just entered the hall of an expensive house in London.He'd used celluloid to slip the door lock. He offered no resistance, was not armed, and got 8 years ! That wasn't even appealed. In the same week a group of drunks, all with convictions for assault and gbh, who threw a bottle at a motorist and, when he got out to protest, slashed him across the face with a broken bottle, scarring him for life They got 18 months. Nowadays the sentencing is rather the other way.It's about time that burglary was reinstated as a serious crime, if not quite to the 8 years in the first case.
Over the last thirty or forty years there's been a trend away from passing heavy sentences on persistent or professional burglars. Back in 1970 I saw a case of a profesional who was caught by police having just entered the hall of an expensive house in London.He'd used celluloid to slip the door lock. He offered no resistance, was not armed, and got 8 years ! That wasn't even appealed. In the same week a group of drunks, all with convictions for assault and gbh, who threw a bottle at a motorist and, when he got out to protest, slashed him across the face with a broken bottle, scarring him for life They got 18 months. Nowadays the sentencing is rather the other way.It's about time that burglary was reinstated as a serious crime, if not quite to the 8 years in the first case.
-- answer removed --
I was burgled a few years ago and fortunately they only borthered to take stuff they could easilly sell - TVs etc - which were swiftly replaced by my insurance company, so I wasn't overly bothered about the stuff being nicked.
What really did get on my tits though, is that bottom feeding low life scum oxygen wasters, and I'm assuming there were at least three of them, decided to crap on the floor - there was one right in the middle of the lounge, one in the kitchen, one in the dining room and one (and this was the worse) on our bed.
Why on earth would they do that? Nicking my stuff is one thing, but why crap all over the place? What the hell is the point of that?
What really did get on my tits though, is that bottom feeding low life scum oxygen wasters, and I'm assuming there were at least three of them, decided to crap on the floor - there was one right in the middle of the lounge, one in the kitchen, one in the dining room and one (and this was the worse) on our bed.
Why on earth would they do that? Nicking my stuff is one thing, but why crap all over the place? What the hell is the point of that?
Lod Judge's remarks are indeed welcome.
Unfortunately magistrates' sentencing guidelines (published only in August last year and which are legally binding) suggest a "Starting Point" of a medium level community penalty. Custody (and certainly the "stiff penalties" suggested by the Lord Chief Justice) will not be considered until a number of serious aggravating features are present.
the previous issue of the guidelines (2003) suggested a Starting Point of committal to the Crown Court for sentence as magistrates' powers (6 months custody) were then deemed insufficient.
I wonder what has changed?
Unfortunately magistrates' sentencing guidelines (published only in August last year and which are legally binding) suggest a "Starting Point" of a medium level community penalty. Custody (and certainly the "stiff penalties" suggested by the Lord Chief Justice) will not be considered until a number of serious aggravating features are present.
the previous issue of the guidelines (2003) suggested a Starting Point of committal to the Crown Court for sentence as magistrates' powers (6 months custody) were then deemed insufficient.
I wonder what has changed?
-- answer removed --
Yes, fred, I know Lord Judge took over his post in October.
Unfortunately his remarks do not form part of magistrates� sentencing guidelines. These are the most important documents when it comes to sentencing burglars and unless they are changed to align with the Lord Chief Justice�s views magistrates have no choice but to sentence in accordance with how they currently stand. This means that the vast majority of domestic burglars will go nowhere near a Crown Court for sentence and few of them will see the inside of a prison.
My question about change really relates to what has changed between about 2002 and now (apart from the personnel involved). In 2002 first time burglars could expect to go to prison, probably for 12 to 18 months. In December 2002 the then LCJ (Lord Woolf) said the sentencing "starting point" of up to 18 months in prison no longer applied and courts should impose a community sentence in the first instance (which itself was a giant leap downwards). Unlike now, in 2003 there was no statutory obligation for courts to sentence in accordance with the guidelines and magistrates could depart from them so as to accord with the LCJ�s whims. This saw the start of the gradual �dumbing down� of the sentences imposed for burglary.
The aggravating feature (theft of sentimental items) to which Lord Judge refers is already covered by the guidelines and is unlikely to elevate the offence from one warranting a medium community penalty to one requiring a �stiff sentence� of imprisonment.
As far as I know, the public�s attitude to burglary has not changed � if anything it has hardened. So why are there dramatic changes in sentencing policy in such a short time? Are those changes real or imagined?
The headline which flip_flop applauds gives the impression that burglars can routinely expect to go to jail when nothing is further from the truth.
Unfortunately his remarks do not form part of magistrates� sentencing guidelines. These are the most important documents when it comes to sentencing burglars and unless they are changed to align with the Lord Chief Justice�s views magistrates have no choice but to sentence in accordance with how they currently stand. This means that the vast majority of domestic burglars will go nowhere near a Crown Court for sentence and few of them will see the inside of a prison.
My question about change really relates to what has changed between about 2002 and now (apart from the personnel involved). In 2002 first time burglars could expect to go to prison, probably for 12 to 18 months. In December 2002 the then LCJ (Lord Woolf) said the sentencing "starting point" of up to 18 months in prison no longer applied and courts should impose a community sentence in the first instance (which itself was a giant leap downwards). Unlike now, in 2003 there was no statutory obligation for courts to sentence in accordance with the guidelines and magistrates could depart from them so as to accord with the LCJ�s whims. This saw the start of the gradual �dumbing down� of the sentences imposed for burglary.
The aggravating feature (theft of sentimental items) to which Lord Judge refers is already covered by the guidelines and is unlikely to elevate the offence from one warranting a medium community penalty to one requiring a �stiff sentence� of imprisonment.
As far as I know, the public�s attitude to burglary has not changed � if anything it has hardened. So why are there dramatic changes in sentencing policy in such a short time? Are those changes real or imagined?
The headline which flip_flop applauds gives the impression that burglars can routinely expect to go to jail when nothing is further from the truth.
Is that really the case now, New Judge ? Why don't the magistrates take the hint and commit to Crown Court for sentence whenever there's two or more offences (let's face it, that's common enough with burglaries) . And who's going to appeal the decision with chances now, after the LCJ has spoken, if magistrates send a few more up for sentence on a single offence containing one or more of the features he thinks aggravating?
Cannot be done, fred.
Defendants who have been convicted of two previous and separate burglary offences must be sent to the Crown Court, as must those who subject their victims to violence, or threats of violence.
However, for �non-serious� burglaries (as if there is such a thing), Crown Court cannot be considered unless there is forced entry (and only then in exceptional circumstances) or if goods stolen are of high value and other aggravating features exist. For most burglaries, this simply is not the case.
Magistrates cannot �take a chance�. They are bound by law to follow their guidelines and must state in open court their reasons for departing from them if they do so.
In short, the headlines do not fit reality.
Defendants who have been convicted of two previous and separate burglary offences must be sent to the Crown Court, as must those who subject their victims to violence, or threats of violence.
However, for �non-serious� burglaries (as if there is such a thing), Crown Court cannot be considered unless there is forced entry (and only then in exceptional circumstances) or if goods stolen are of high value and other aggravating features exist. For most burglaries, this simply is not the case.
Magistrates cannot �take a chance�. They are bound by law to follow their guidelines and must state in open court their reasons for departing from them if they do so.
In short, the headlines do not fit reality.
1 to 19 of 19
