Why is burglary treated as a minor crime?

[R1Geezer]

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?

[R1Geezer]

so what you are saying is then that all those people who feel violated and traumatised by having low life scum rooting round their home are over reacting? What about the ones who have to move? what about irreplacable possessionsd being stolen and sold for £10 up the hot shop, the insurance doesn't help those. They should just pull themselves together? right? A good friend of mine was burgled and his mum lives in his house too, they stole jewellry that had been bought by her late husband, all irreplaceable, good job the old girl is'nt really with it or she'd be distraught. Still that's not as bad as traffic offences is it?

[R1Geezer]

There was a guy who went to jail for 155 on a blade, but I guess he was actually jailed for dangerous rather than the speeding itself. Good technicality Judge!

[Oneeyedvic]

I know of people who live in fear of boy racers who regularly go up and down the seafront revving their engines. Their lives are made a misery and they can't move as no one wants to buy their houses.

So would you be happy if I suggested that people with illegal exhausts were given 10 years? Of course you wouldn't.

I would be more than happy to see people put in prison as the Judge suggests for a small term but 10 years is just plain stupid. And I will repeat, that time in prison needs to be useful time.

[R1Geezer]

Vic, give it up, this comparison with traffic violations is clearly flawed. I think most would rather have a boy racer driving up the street than a burglary. Anyway if that hoppened outside my house I'd just put a stinger out.

[R1Geezer]

My exhaust is legal by the way.

[ludwig]

You're banging your head agaisnt a brick wall here geezer. It looks like Vic wouldn't be partcularly bothered if someone ransacked his house and made off with his possessions, so can't really bring himself to sympathise much with people who would. Just as long as they didn't speed away too fast in the getaway car of course, in which case we should throw the book at them.
The thing is that some liberals (not particularly you here Vic) just don't believe anyone should be punished for anything. They regard the crime as the first wrong, and the punishment as the second wrong which doesn't make a right. That's what it looks like anyway.

[Oneeyedvic]

///It looks like Vic wouldn't be partcularly bothered if someone ransacked his house and made off with his possessions, so can't really bring himself to sympathise much with people who would. ///

not sure how many times I can repeat myslef on this point. It would seriously pss me off, but it is not a matter of life and death,

10 years is about the time that people get for manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.

R1 seems to think that ALL burglary should carry the same sentence as someone who kills by say drink driving.

Can anyone really say this is sensible?

[Oneeyedvic]

Let me just quote geezer here:

I will give a tarrif for those Jake but first I want to make it clear that under the geezer rules there is no remission for good behavious but a sentance can be increased for bad behaviour. There are also no concurrent sentences.
Speeding? - the current system is about right for that
Tax evasion - ditto
Shoplifting? - 1 year 1st offence, 5years second offence, 10 years thereafter
Burglary? - 10 years first offence, 20 years thereafter
Assault? - Depends on severity but I'd go with the current system on that (note remisiion is now banned)
GBH? - I'll go with the current system on that
Manslaughter? - ditto
Murder? - Life with no possibilty of parole.



If you got into a car, drove excessively and killed someone, you would be on a charge or manslaughter. If you went to a pub and beat the sh8t out of someone, you would be up for assault, gbh or if they died, manslaughter. You would not get 10 years for this.

You really think that involuntarily killing someone is worse than any aspect of burglary?

[naomi24]

Vic, you clearly don't understand the appalling impact that burglary has on people's lives. I've been burgled twice and I can assure you it didn't just p... me off. I would seriously throw away the key.

[Quinlad]

Different people have different reactions don't they?

I've been burgled half a dozen times (the joys of south London). It's very unpleasant, but equating it to crimes that can result in serious injury or death is hysterical IMHO.

[Oneeyedvic]

I've only been burgled once (never caught him)

I have had a friend die in a traffic accident due to a speeding car (dangerous driving, 3 years)

3 guesses which was worse.

[naomi24]

It's futile to compare two totally different crimes. One does not negate the other.

[Oneeyedvic]

it may be futile to compare the crimes, but we are talking about sentacing guidelines - so a comparative has to be made.

10 years as a standard for burglary is far too long for the many reasons I have stated.

[naomi24]

In your opinion, but not in mine.

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay, I am now curious. Do you think things like dangerous driving or manslaughter should carry lengthier sentences, or do you (like Geezer) think that they are fine.

Do you really think that it should be a 10 year minimum for a first offence? Do you not think that there should be variances according to how the burglary took place (ie when owners were away, with violence etc) whether it was a first offence or a habitual criminal etc.

Under Geezers rules, raping, assaulting or involuntarily killing someone would result in a lower sentence that stealing their property.

I for one would really not like to live in a society where we value possessions more than human life.

[naomi24]

Whatever the offence, concern these days appears to be predominantly for the welfare of the perpetrator rather than the victim. Burglars choose to do what they do, and in my opinion, the longer they, and others who deliberately commit criminal acts, are removed from society, the better.

[Oneeyedvic]

naomi - brilliant way of not answering the question. You should be a politician.

[naomi24]

Yes, that 's been suggested before. ;o)

Quite simply Vic, I'm not prepared to weigh one crime against another because I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who deliberately commits a criminal act knowing full well that his actions are going to hurt other people. It wouldn't bother me one iota if they were all removed from society indefinitely. In fact I wish they were.

[Quinlad]

Be it multiple murder or parking in front of someone's driveway.

[ludwig]

//It's very unpleasant, but equating it to crimes that can result in serious injury or death is hysterical IMHO. //

Quin, we're not talking about nicking a gnome off someones front garden, but when someone breaks into your home, perhaps armed, perhaps when you're there asleep. This can be seriously traumatic for many people and it's wrong to trivialise it - and it is a crime that can result in serious injury or death by the way, in the case where the burglar is disturbed in the act. Someone (ummm?) related the story of how they were burgled and followed the trail to determine the person had been all around the house including standing at the foot of her? bed. She's lucky she or her kids didn't wake up, as anything could have happened. You don't think that's a traumatic and extremely dangerous situation to be in?