Why is this country so soft on crime? Watch

Unknown-99
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 year ago
#21
Underfunded police force because of our useless, greedy tory government.
0
reply
408655
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 year ago
#22
This country is so shameful when it comes to crime, it is almost as bad as the US. I feel more safer in Saudia Arabia than in the UK and I'm not even Saudi (or Arab)
1
reply
renegradeisland
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 year ago
#23
The Tories raised the amount police forces could collect from council tax in order to fight crime, which is a good ploy since councils can judge for themselves how important crime is in their area.

(Original post by jadey.tw)
Check out Scandinavian countries approach to crime. They are very "soft" according to you, but have the lowest rates of recidivism in the world. We have 60%. America, which is "harsher" on crime, slightly higher, 67ish depending on sources. Either way it is obvious that our approach to criminals don't work. Look at Norway's prisons models and success rates and then maybe open your mind to the idea that killing off people isn't the brightest choice.
Actually there's a serious problem with crime in Scandinavia but it's largely down to the Muslims. I guess we have a similar problem here in the UK but we've largely avoided it due to US influence.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 year ago
#24
I have no idea why he only got 9 months, he pleaded not guilty to the GBH and guilty to the child porn.
He wasn't even convicted of the breach of bail terms, sexual assault & attempted abduction- those three charges were kept on file.

The paedophile's lawyers kept going on about how he was feeling depressed, suicidal, agoraphobic and might be bipolar but couldn't find a doctor that would agree that he definitely had bipolar.
That seemed to earn him sympathy from the judge and got him bail during the trial.
Although going by the jurors faces, the sympathy evaporated after the paedophile testified about attacking the girl and being persecuted by the law for being sexually attracted to female and male children.

The paedophile was so agoraphobic that he sneaked out of his bail address over the weekend, traveled to the other side of the country and went to a few internet cafes to download child abuse imagery.

My parents and their trade union friends had to push hard for months for the GBH charges to be brought.
Paedophile's lawyers wanted him given a caution for common assault.
The police wanted the charges to be attempted murder.
My uncle was in intensive care, the police refused to issue a caution and the CPS were divided about whether the paedophile's intentions were premeditated or not.
No illegal weapon was used but the paedophile said during the trial that he had wanted to rape a schoolgirl for several years and tried to kick my uncle to death for interfering.

A year after the trial, victim support told my uncle that the paedophile was back in prison- he had been sentenced to another 9 months for having 100,000 child pornography videos and photos.

No idea why he always gets sentenced to 9 months in jail.
Apparently he doesn't have regular employment, no money, doesn't have any famous friends and his family don't want to know him.
His lawyers are very nasty but work on legal aid.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Why was it charged as section 20; on the facts as you state them. it looks an obvious section 18.

The sentencing guidelines from 2011 onwards would have given a sentencing range on a not guilty plea of 30 months to 4 years with a maximum discount of 1/3 for a guilty plea. So why did it become 9 months.

How long dd he did get for the attempted rape/abduction of the girl?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 year ago
#25
(Original post by londonmyst)
I have no idea why he only got 9 months, he pleaded not guilty to the GBH and guilty to the child porn.
He wasn't even convicted of the breach of bail terms, sexual assault & attempted abduction- those three charges were kept on file.

The paedophile's lawyers kept going on about how he was feeling depressed, suicidal, agoraphobic and might be bipolar but couldn't find a doctor that would agree that he definitely had bipolar.
That seemed to earn him sympathy from the judge and got him bail during the trial.
Although going by the jurors faces, the sympathy evaporated after the paedophile testified about attacking the girl and being persecuted by the law for being sexually attracted to female and male children.

The paedophile was so agoraphobic that he sneaked out of his bail address over the weekend, traveled to the other side of the country and went to a few internet cafes to download child abuse imagery.

My parents and their trade union friends had to push hard for months for the GBH charges to be brought.
Paedophile's lawyers wanted him given a caution for common assault.
The police wanted the charges to be attempted murder.
My uncle was in intensive care, the police refused to issue a caution and the CPS were divided about whether the paedophile's intentions were premeditated or not.
No illegal weapon was used but the paedophile said during the trial that he had wanted to rape a schoolgirl for several years and tried to kick my uncle to death for interfering.

A year after the trial, victim support told my uncle that the paedophile was back in prison- he had been sentenced to another 9 months for having 100,000 child pornography videos and photos.

No idea why he always gets sentenced to 9 months in jail.
Apparently he doesn't have regular employment, no money, doesn't have any famous friends and his family don't want to know him.
His lawyers are very nasty but work on legal aid.
There have been a lot of criticisms of CPS conduct and it sounds to me that you have a legitimate grievance about the CPS's handling of this case. However, you have turned that grievance into a complaint about sentence length. The plain fact is that you cannot cure a problem of under-prosecuting (and I suspect the case was also mis-categorised for sentencing purposes as a level 2 rather than a level 1 offence) by increasing the length of sentences.
0
reply
Jack22031994
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 year ago
#26
The liberal left would rather defend the criminal, than the victim - thats why, and unfortunately this country is full of them - especially our generation.
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 year ago
#27
I know that the CPS are overstretched and working under intense pressure, often exacerbated by government cuts.
Any person can make a mistake or come to a flawed decision at work on a bad day.
But those are separate issues.

I think that England has a problem with woefully insufficient sentences being issued to the most dangerous, often habitual criminals.
This "softly softly" light touch approach to sentencing the perpetrators of horrific crimes undermines both public safety and trust in the justice system.

Not to mention the immense costs to public finances of the revolving door of repeat offenders, legal aid and supporting victims in their recovery.
I'm not adverse to courts making serious offenders liable for the full costs of their trials, compensation to victims and any fines ordered at trial.
If Chris Huhne gets sentenced to 8 months in jail plus payment of 77,000 in court costs for bringing his lies about who was driving to trial, then more serious criminal offenders can look forward to that too. Quite a deterrent against criminality from a financial point of view.

If a young thug gets only 4 months imprisonment for attacking a male police officer with a 10 inch knife in a public place, what will he expect the sentence to be when his next victim is his mother/girlfriend/baby?

The venue of a young offenders institution aside, a judicial sentencing decision of 4 months imprisonment for a person who illegally carries a 10 inch hunting knife in a public place and stabs a police officer on duty does not promote public confidence in England's criminal justice system amongst law abiding people.
On the other hand, the violent criminals who view attacks on the police as a badge of honour will be singing with glee.
Some have their own facebook pages and videos on youtube that show them in their cells singing, celebrating and mocking their victims/the law.

Opportunistic murderers convicted of brutally killing helpless pensioners in their own homes must never be allowed to abuse freedom by banding together post conviction to form a killers club to bring rape, murder and mayhem to our streets.
We already have enough problems with violent crime, without including convicted murderers of the elderly who plan to commit more murders with similar MO the moment they are released from their murder sentences.

Two potential suggestions to that one-
1) Keep convicted murderers in high security prisons for life,
2) For killers whose crimes were comparatively less heinous, have limited history of violence and no involvement with illegal weaponry- transfer into secured accommodation where their convictions are known to all, their are employment opportunities for them, entire premises are staffed entirely by experienced professionals and no children or vulnerable civilians can obtain access.

The old saying was "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
It only hold true in practice as long as the sentences are adequate, fit the crime and are implemented in a way that ensures that the most dangerous, prolific criminals are locked up for a seriously long time.
Even some of the hardened criminals my mother advised used to talk about their "crimes deserving serious jail time".
Drug importers, burglars, robbers, rapists, football hooligans, gangsters.
They got it, even if the sentencing judges and people writing sentencing guidelines didn't.





(Original post by nulli tertius)
There have been a lot of criticisms of CPS conduct and it sounds to me that you have a legitimate grievance about the CPS's handling of this case. However, you have turned that grievance into a complaint about sentence length. The plain fact is that you cannot cure a problem of under-prosecuting (and I suspect the case was also mis-categorised for sentencing purposes as a level 2 rather than a level 1 offence) by increasing the length of sentences.
0
reply
Odin12
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
Drug dealers enslave others, thereby trampling on their human rights: both the addicts they create, and the young people they exploit in county lines gangs. Freedom is a fundamental principle of life in this country; without it, life is worthless. Many drug dealers also have no regard for human life. They are quick to murder rival dealers; they don’t care about the fatal consequences of their product for their customers; and they have no conscience about sourcing their product from murderous cartels, who commit mass destruction in 3rd world nations.The only thing that stops me supporting the death penalty is the risk of executing the wrong person.
1
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
The Scottish legal system seems more soft than the English legal system. Look at the sentences given and/or served as per Scottish courts for sexual offences and murder and weep.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
Primitive people require primitive justice. Free bed and board with a ps4 doesn't quite seem a deterrent enough for some odd reason...
1
reply
keptinside
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Pantera Fan Club)
I don't think the UK is soft on crime, I just think we need more cops.
All cops be working in McDonald’s for night shifts. They busy
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by AppleB)
Sentences are lenient.
Which ones?

Bare in mind that the people you feel got off likely usually have mitigating circumstances rarely reported by the tabloid media.

And despite baying for longer prison sentences, all the evidence shows that prison does not work. Its like getting kids to eat more sweets to solve the obesity epidemic.
0
reply
Pencil
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
I think it's about finding the right balance between a society where you have the freedom to walk the streets without fearing the police and a society where you can walk the streets without fearing criminals.

I think the UK is closer to that perfect balance than the Philippines for example, although I would agree that the UK is far too soft when it comes sentencing and non-serious crime. I don't believe that our prisons are very good at rehabilitating people, given the re-offending rates. Prison is certainly not an effective form of punishment either in my opinion.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...ing-statistics
Last edited by Pencil; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Odin12)
Drug dealers enslave others, thereby trampling on their human rights: both the addicts they create, and the young people they exploit in county lines gangs.
In fairness I imagine drug dealers have better things to care about than "human rights".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are cats selfish

Yes (144)
61.28%
No (91)
38.72%

Watched Threads

View All