News3 mins ago
Why is burglary treated as a minor crime?
I consider it a very serious invasion of personal space/property, a virtual rape. Some of the victims are traumatised permanently, often having to move. Yet our courts treat it like shop lifting. To get jailed a criminal has to have dozens under the belt. So why as a society can we not lock this scum up for longer?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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.
sorry ahms you are going to have to elaborate on that.
OK so if deterrants don't work jake/vic what should we do?
Perhaps the US would be far far worse than now. When you say deterrant doesn't work you mean it doesn't worek 100%. Yes there's always going to be nutters so keep them off the streets longer. It aint rocket science. Under the trendy lefty methods of the last generation we have created a whole swatthe of feral scum who laugh at the law and the rest of us. I say enough is enough, let's get some proper jails and lock these fcukers up. Don't give me all that sh1te about cost either, ousource the whole thing at a quarter of the price, case solved!
OK so if deterrants don't work jake/vic what should we do?
Perhaps the US would be far far worse than now. When you say deterrant doesn't work you mean it doesn't worek 100%. Yes there's always going to be nutters so keep them off the streets longer. It aint rocket science. Under the trendy lefty methods of the last generation we have created a whole swatthe of feral scum who laugh at the law and the rest of us. I say enough is enough, let's get some proper jails and lock these fcukers up. Don't give me all that sh1te about cost either, ousource the whole thing at a quarter of the price, case solved!
jno - yes, they are doing their best to impose a miserable lefty pseudo police state by creating millions of laws punishable by nothing much but a fine (as a useful revenue raiser), having your dna stored on a database for later misuse and being permanently branded as a criminal. I expect to see 'Failure to acknowledge global warming' and 'ownership of a robinson's golly badge' to be added to that list of heinous activities at some point.
What they (or to be fair, the legal system as a whole) is not seeming to do is to make sure existing laws are effective by putting serious sentencing in place for the crimes which really do destroy or make peoples lives a misery. I'm taling about crimes of violence in particular.
What they (or to be fair, the legal system as a whole) is not seeming to do is to make sure existing laws are effective by putting serious sentencing in place for the crimes which really do destroy or make peoples lives a misery. I'm taling about crimes of violence in particular.
Why do you think that the youth have suddenly become feral? Have you read say "Oliver Twist". Youth have been feral for a long time - it isn't a sudden occurrence.
To me the answer is simple - education and rehabilitation. Dealing with the underlying problems in society. Yes, this will cost money, and this will need to be raised by the highest paid people in the country (ie those currently earning over say £500,000 a year). But then since they will ultimately benefit by not being burgled etc, I am sure that they will be more than happy to pay :-)
To me the answer is simple - education and rehabilitation. Dealing with the underlying problems in society. Yes, this will cost money, and this will need to be raised by the highest paid people in the country (ie those currently earning over say £500,000 a year). But then since they will ultimately benefit by not being burgled etc, I am sure that they will be more than happy to pay :-)
-- answer removed --
///the possession of lethal weapons is enshrined in its constitution/// no it is not, The right to bear arms is for a "well regulated militia"
We have far more in common with America than most other countries in the way we act. If you don't like comparisons to the US who share a lot of our laws), name another country that shares our ideals and laws that has successfully implemented a harsh punishment regime.
Or maybe give a link to some studies that show that this will be effective.
We have far more in common with America than most other countries in the way we act. If you don't like comparisons to the US who share a lot of our laws), name another country that shares our ideals and laws that has successfully implemented a harsh punishment regime.
Or maybe give a link to some studies that show that this will be effective.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Okay,so to sum up, I was talking about this particular thread - where R1 wants harsher punishments. I don't believe that this will elp in any way shape or form and I have given examples of the harsh punishments dolled out in this country (Victorian era) and in the modern world with another Western country. You do not like the fact that I am comparing our country to the Yanks for some reason. Since I have given examples of why I don't think it won't work, I believe I am making a more informed choice. I have asked you (or R1) therefore which countries or studies you believe will support his argument. That to me is what a debate is. Your idea of a debate seems to be more Monty Pythonesuq (no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, ad infinitum)
Depends how you define scum I guess.
Some would say that people who drive at 40mph in a 30mph limit are scum.
Some would say that people with race cans on their motor bikes are scum.
Both of the aforementioned are breaking the law and are anti social behaviour. But I presume that both are okay with you.
Some would say that people who drive at 40mph in a 30mph limit are scum.
Some would say that people with race cans on their motor bikes are scum.
Both of the aforementioned are breaking the law and are anti social behaviour. But I presume that both are okay with you.
As I said, I would be really ped off. But I am insured and other that the irritation, I wouldn't suffer anything.
How many people do you know who have died as a result of a burglary
Over 32,000 people have died on the roads in the last 10 years - and far more than that seriously injured. If you are a biker, I would presume that you know of at least one person who has died on the road (there is no biker I know (over 30 who doesn't).
Have a look here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm and see how many fatalities there were near you.
It is a FACT that the slower you are going, the more time you have to react and the less distance will be required to brake.
If you hit a pedestrian at 40mph then they will only have a 10% chance of surviving. Do I think 700 pedestrian lives a year is more important than a tv and some Sugar on my carpet?
Yes.
How many people do you know who have died as a result of a burglary
Over 32,000 people have died on the roads in the last 10 years - and far more than that seriously injured. If you are a biker, I would presume that you know of at least one person who has died on the road (there is no biker I know (over 30 who doesn't).
Have a look here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm and see how many fatalities there were near you.
It is a FACT that the slower you are going, the more time you have to react and the less distance will be required to brake.
If you hit a pedestrian at 40mph then they will only have a 10% chance of surviving. Do I think 700 pedestrian lives a year is more important than a tv and some Sugar on my carpet?
Yes.
Once again I’m a bit late, but a few things need pointing out:
Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines suggest that only the very lowest level of domestic burglaries (those where there is unforced entry and low value theft with no aggravating features) should attract a non-custodial sentence. For all others custody should be the starting point and any burglary with an aggravating feature such as ransacking or the occupier being present should be sent to the Crown Court.
However, I am well aware that many, many burglars are receiving non-custodial sentences and in my view this is wrong. Any domestic burglary should attract custody and I suggest that 12 months is the absolute minimum, even for a first offender.
Vic’s attempts to equate burglary with speeding are disingenuous. The vast majority of speeding offences result in no damage or harm to anybody. It is true that careless or dangerous driving can often lead to death or injury, but harsher penalties exist for those offences – much harsher when a death occurs. To link speeding unequivocally with death and injury is like linking punching somebody with GBH or manslaughter. Yes, one can lead to the other, but you don’t get 10 years for punching somebody.
The same cannot be said of domestic burglary. Often the physical loss of a TV and “some sugar on the carpet” (heaven knows why those two articles were seen fit to mention) is not the prime cause of the victim’s suffering. It is the long term mental harm that often accompanies burglary which does the damage.
Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines suggest that only the very lowest level of domestic burglaries (those where there is unforced entry and low value theft with no aggravating features) should attract a non-custodial sentence. For all others custody should be the starting point and any burglary with an aggravating feature such as ransacking or the occupier being present should be sent to the Crown Court.
However, I am well aware that many, many burglars are receiving non-custodial sentences and in my view this is wrong. Any domestic burglary should attract custody and I suggest that 12 months is the absolute minimum, even for a first offender.
Vic’s attempts to equate burglary with speeding are disingenuous. The vast majority of speeding offences result in no damage or harm to anybody. It is true that careless or dangerous driving can often lead to death or injury, but harsher penalties exist for those offences – much harsher when a death occurs. To link speeding unequivocally with death and injury is like linking punching somebody with GBH or manslaughter. Yes, one can lead to the other, but you don’t get 10 years for punching somebody.
The same cannot be said of domestic burglary. Often the physical loss of a TV and “some sugar on the carpet” (heaven knows why those two articles were seen fit to mention) is not the prime cause of the victim’s suffering. It is the long term mental harm that often accompanies burglary which does the damage.
On the wider note that has been raised, I am interested to read that some people think that the UK somehow has a harsher legal regime than other similar countries when it comes to locking people up. It has not. The reason why more people are in prison in the UK than in similar countries is simply that more people commit crime here.
Britain has a fairly low rate of imprisonment (prison sentences per crimes committed). But it has the highest rate of imprisonment (%age of the population) of the western world. This is because we have the highest rate of acquisitive crime and offences involving violence in the developed world (though sometimes coming second to Australia). As an example, Spain has about half as much crime of this type per head of population but a much higher rate of imprisonment (nearly all such crimes in Spain result in custody). The UK has almost twice the number of theft and violence crimes (per head) as France but the same rate of imprisonment.
Britain has a fairly low rate of imprisonment (prison sentences per crimes committed). But it has the highest rate of imprisonment (%age of the population) of the western world. This is because we have the highest rate of acquisitive crime and offences involving violence in the developed world (though sometimes coming second to Australia). As an example, Spain has about half as much crime of this type per head of population but a much higher rate of imprisonment (nearly all such crimes in Spain result in custody). The UK has almost twice the number of theft and violence crimes (per head) as France but the same rate of imprisonment.
Finally, the argument whether prison or other options are best suited to offences such as burglary is simple to win. Part of almost any sentence for such crimes should be to penalise the perpetrator. Ask anybody involved in the legal system (from defendant to judge) and watch any sentencing exercise at a court and you will learn that all the defendant is interested in is whether he is going inside. Nothing else matters. If a fine, a suspended sentence, a community order or anything else is imposed, they have “a result”. Prison is the only penalty they fear.
A second part of such a sentence is protection of the public. Whilst they are inside they cannot reoffend.
A third part is rehabilitation and it is said that prison does not work because ex-prisoners re-offend. The rate of recidivism among those serving custody is indeed slightly higher than those serving other types of sentences. However, those sent to custody have either committed a serious offence or a number of less serious ones and they tend to re-offend because they have a criminal lifestyle, not because of the type of sentence they have served.
Finally, prison is the only option which does not require the co-operation of those convicted. Any other option needs the offender to agree to its terms. So what do you do to the 18 year old burglar who has been awarded 100 hours of unpaid work if he says “Stuff you, I’m not turning up”?
Oh, BTW Geezer, you cannot go to jail for speeding, however serious it may be!!!
A second part of such a sentence is protection of the public. Whilst they are inside they cannot reoffend.
A third part is rehabilitation and it is said that prison does not work because ex-prisoners re-offend. The rate of recidivism among those serving custody is indeed slightly higher than those serving other types of sentences. However, those sent to custody have either committed a serious offence or a number of less serious ones and they tend to re-offend because they have a criminal lifestyle, not because of the type of sentence they have served.
Finally, prison is the only option which does not require the co-operation of those convicted. Any other option needs the offender to agree to its terms. So what do you do to the 18 year old burglar who has been awarded 100 hours of unpaid work if he says “Stuff you, I’m not turning up”?
Oh, BTW Geezer, you cannot go to jail for speeding, however serious it may be!!!
Latest Posts
Cadburys Is No Longer Royal! Diddums!
News3 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Is Labour Starting To Abolish Democracy...
News15 mins ago