Things that piss you off Page 1,338

Quote: sootyj @ 15th December 2013, 12:14 PM GMT

I think copper theft should get a premium sentencing if caught, it encourages people to be so antisocial

View original

It does. The courts are now aware of the great disruption such thefts cause and the money that can be made from scrap metal sales.

I had a client who nicked some BT cable (admittedly putting the phones out in this particular area for 20 minutes). Never been in trouble before, family man, good character etc. 30 months immediate imprisonment. I appealed, the Court of Appeal told me to jog on.

I have to say that I don't think being good to your own family and never having been caught for anything before is justification for lenient sentencing. And nicking copper kind of contradicts the 'good character' idea...

I'm sure you're always appealing Jennie

I can't see the point in locking up none violent, none repeat, none flight risk offenders.

It's massively expensive, makes people identify with being crooks and just increases recidivisim

I've always been a fan of long term community service, that or stoning.

You know if you're stoned and you escape you're instantly pardoned.

Quote: Harridan @ 15th December 2013, 5:56 PM GMT

I have to say that I don't think being good to your own family and never having been caught for anything before is justification for lenient sentencing. And nicking copper kind of contradicts the 'good character' idea...

View original

But you have to differentiate between offenders - otherwise you will get some very unjust outcomes if everyone got the same sentence for the same offence.

As a matter of logic, you should treat someone who has not committed a criminal offence before less harshly than someone who has done it 50 times before.

If you have no previous convictions, you are treated as having never committed a criminal offence before ("never been caught" may sometimes be accurate, but flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty")

In the same way, someone who has hitherto been an upstanding member of the community should have that acknowledged in their favour. It is not justification for the crime, it is mitigation.

The family thing comes into play because the judge must consider the impact of a custodial sentence on family members, particularly children. This man was the sole wage earner in his family. He had young children.

There are reasons why people do things. My client had a particular reason, which I don't feel I should disclose here. He made a bad choice, but he is not a bad person.

Personally, I would have given him a suspended sentence of imprisonment. That means that he is sent to prison, but doesn't actually have to serve the sentence unless he gets into more trouble. He also has to do a load of unpaid work in the community.

I think that would have reflected the seriousness of his actions but allowed him to make amends as a free man, saving the tax payer money in the long run.

Quote: sootyj @ 15th December 2013, 6:06 PM GMT

I'm sure you're always appealing Jennie

View original

Quote: sootyj @ 15th December 2013, 6:06 PM GMT

I can't see the point in locking up none violent, none repeat, none flight risk offenders.

It's massively expensive, makes people identify with being crooks and just increases recidivisim

View original

I agree. With this type of offence, there is an assumption that it has a deterrent effect - but I don't think enough people know about it for this to work.

Quote: Jennie @ 15th December 2013, 6:16 PM GMT

That means that he is sent to prison, but doesn't actually have to serve the sentence unless he gets into more trouble.

View original

Now that phrase confuses me, Jennie. He's sent to prison, but doesn't serve the sentence. What does he do at the prison? Or am I taking this too literally?!

Quote: Ben @ 15th December 2013, 6:20 PM GMT

Now that phrase confuses me, Jennie. He's sent to prison, but doesn't serve the sentence. What does he do at the prison? Or am I taking this too literally?!

View original

Sorry, I didn't really explain it very well. It is that you receive a prison sentence, but it is suspended, so you do not have to actually serve it unless you get into more trouble.

So for example, you could receive a two year sentence of imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement of 100 hours unpaid work.

That means that you have been given two years imprisonment, but you do not have to go to prison so long as you stay out of trouble for two years and do 100 hours work in the community.

I should really have said "given a sentence of imprisonment" rather than "sent to prison".

You're quite right, of course, Jennie. I seem to get a bit right wing when I'm having a bad day, it seems...

Quote: Harridan @ 15th December 2013, 7:54 PM GMT

You're quite right, of course, Jennie. I seem to get a bit right wing when I'm having a bad day, it seems...

View original

Nah, I am usually wrong. I tend to see things too far the other way. I wouldn't lock anyone up, which isn't the right approach either.

Sorry to hear about your bad day.

Quote: Jennie @ 15th December 2013, 8:11 PM GMT

Nah, I am usually wrong. I tend to see things too far the other way. I wouldn't lock anyone up, which isn't the right approach either.

View original

What would you do instead, for a really serious crime such as rape? Or murder?

Quote: Jennie @ 15th December 2013, 6:23 PM GMT

Sorry, I didn't really explain it very well. It is that you receive a prison sentence, but it is suspended, so you do not have to actually serve it unless you get into more trouble.

So for example, you could receive a two year sentence of imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement of 100 hours unpaid work.

That means that you have been given two years imprisonment, but you do not have to go to prison so long as you stay out of trouble for two years and do 100 hours work in the community.

I should really have said "given a sentence of imprisonment" rather than "sent to prison".

View original

Ah, that's what I thought it meant. Incidentally, I've never had a prison sentence. Suspended or otherwise.

Saxophones.

Saxaphones piss you off??? I love a bit of sax.

Oldrocker pisses Kenny G. off.

Baker Street

This programme on the front page of radio iPlayer:

The Shared Experience

Five people who have seen a ghost share their experience with Fi Glover.

Should read "Five people who either mistakenly think they've seen a ghost or who are just plain lying for attention chat shit to Fi Glover."

Also annoyed by the number of people using the bible as an historical document on Radio 2 today, trying to prove the ethnicity of a person for whose existence there is zero historical evidence. I don't care if you think Jesus is purple with green stripes, but stop starting your arguments with the statement that there is definitely an historical figure called Jesus, because there isn't.

I have no patience for people's idiotic supernatural bullshit today.