24 hours in Police Custody. Ch.4 documentary.

[semi-auto]

Apprehension and sentencing are key. Had the home owner been confident that the villains would be apprehended and an appropriate custodial sentence imposed, would he have been so keen to chase them. Perhaps not, but we will never know. What we do know is that the sentence passed down on these two villains, given their criminal history and total lack of remorse, was, in my view pathetic and hardly a deterrent. To suggest that the police would have spent any time on investigating the attempted burglar is living in cloud cuckoo land. The home owner would have been given a crime number (for insurance purposes) and that would have been that. The perpetrators would be, and still are, free to continue 'getting money in other ways' rather than working, as stated by one of them!  

[henry d]

2 hours ago, old man said:

...trying to understand how society here has moved so far towards defending the law breaker at the expense of the law abiding? No common sense involved?

 I really don't understand it; the law breakers, in this case both thieves and the car driver were breaking the law. Common sense would surely say that if you chase after someone for whatever reason, if you hurt them then you are at fault. If we don't take that on then you could quite easily distort that to leather ten shades out of anyone you don't like. 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, semi-auto said:

Apprehension and sentencing are key. Had the home owner been confident that the villains would be apprehended and an appropriate custodial sentence imposed, would he have been so keen to chase them. Perhaps not, but we will never know. What we do know is that the sentence passed down on these two villains, given their criminal history and total lack of remorse, was, in my view pathetic and hardly a deterrent. To suggest that the police would have spent any time on investigating the attempted burglar is living in cloud cuckoo land. The home owner would have been given a crime number (for insurance purposes) and that would have been that. The perpetrators would be, and still are, free to continue 'getting money in other ways' rather than working, as stated by one of them!  

Spot on.

This is one of those rare threads where 99% of you are right.

The job of the police is to apprehend criminals, before, during and after crimes.
The job of the CPS , and courts, are to prove guilt and pass appropriate sentence.
The job of probationary or prison services is to rehabilitate.
The end result of these 3 factors , is to deter criminals doing crimes, is it not ?

What happens when police fail to apprehend, courts fail to prove, or pass adequate sentence, and prison is like a hotel ?
Thats right, there is no deterrence .

Once the public lose faith in the system, they tend to react differently, often , as some have stated , the full force of the law gets turned on them, because we cant have vigilantes on the streets can we ?
But we can have convicted criminals on the streets, who really should be locked up , career criminals , who bleat their ficticious girlfriend has just had a baby, or theyve just found a job , and are 'turning their life round' 
Courts NEVER check on these mitigating factors, the crim can say what they like and the prosecution accepts it.

Even when a custodial sentenced is virtually inevitable , the prison system is normally at 100 % capacity, so alternatives are found, in essence , theyre set free...
Yet no one in power advocates building more prisons  ??

Tony Martins murder conviction is an excellent example of all this, and this man , who, out of sheer frustration , made a very poor judgment call.
Weight of public opinion worked for Tony Martin, and will likely work here.~
But its not going to stop happening while, the deterrent for criminality is so weak.

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

 I really don't understand it; the law breakers, in this case both thieves and the car driver were breaking the law. Common sense would surely say that if you chase after someone for whatever reason, if you hurt them then you are at fault. If we don't take that on then you could quite easily distort that to leather ten shades out of anyone you don't like. 

If someone tries to mug you at knifepoint on the street, you prevent them using reasonable force, but they get seriously injured or die, are you at fault ?

[Rem260]

14 hours ago, Gordon R said:

My god! You've once again proved your inability to read and understand what you wrote. New one on me "persume". Is that a legal term?

PS What is "was is"?

🙂

Non sensicle reply as usual. Your ramblings don't improve. A sad indictment when your counter argument is to correct a mistake in spelling.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Rem260

[Westley]

Well certainly in America you do NOT get intruders in your yard (garden) they just shoot them. I also know that until recently, thieves were still losing their hands in Pakistan. So much so if you dropped your wallet, nobody would pick it up. Yes, they would tell you that you had dropped it, but pick it up......never.

I believe that the prosthetic hand maker, made a fortune at the appeal courts   !

[Rem260]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Spot on.

This is one of those rare threads where 99% of you are right.

The job of the police is to apprehend criminals, before, during and after crimes.
The job of the CPS , and courts, are to prove guilt and pass appropriate sentence.
The job of probationary or prison services is to rehabilitate.
The end result of these 3 factors , is to deter criminals doing crimes, is it not ?

What happens when police fail to apprehend, courts fail to prove, or pass adequate sentence, and prison is like a hotel ?
Thats right, there is no deterrence .

Once the public lose faith in the system, they tend to react differently, often , as some have stated , the full force of the law gets turned on them, because we cant have vigilantes on the streets can we ?
But we can have convicted criminals on the streets, who really should be locked up , career criminals , who bleat their ficticious girlfriend has just had a baby, or theyve just found a job , and are 'turning their life round' 
Courts NEVER check on these mitigating factors, the crim can say what they like and the prosecution accepts it.

Even when a custodial sentenced is virtually inevitable , the prison system is normally at 100 % capacity, so alternatives are found, in essence , theyre set free...
Yet no one in power advocates building more prisons  ??

Tony Martins murder conviction is an excellent example of all this, and this man , who, out of sheer frustration , made a very poor judgment call.
Weight of public opinion worked for Tony Martin, and will likely work here.~
But its not going to stop happening while, the deterrent for criminality is so weak.

If someone tries to mug you at knifepoint on the street, you prevent them using reasonable force, but they get seriously injured or die, are you at fault ?

It seems that a few on here would automatically think you are. As thier threshold of reasonable force favours the offender. Anything more than nasty words would be too much.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Rem260

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, old'un said:

this is really petty, please look and see how the word "defending" came into an exchange of posts between me and oowee.

What was it henry said to you, "add a bit, a arm, a leg" 

Alright for him to do it when it suits his narrative! 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Non sensicle reply as usual. Your ramblings don't improve. A sad indictment when your counter argument is to correct a mistake in spelling.

You told me that I failed to understand your rambling posts. I pointed out that you should pay a little attention to your own.

Freebies:-

"thier" - their

"Non sensicle" - nonsensical

My view on the rights and wrongs of the householder's actions are clearly stated and within the law. You come across as rash or juvenile.

 

[Rem260]

27 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

You told me that I failed to understand your rambling posts. I pointed out that you should pay a little attention to your own.

Freebies:-

"thier" - their

"Non sensicle" - nonsensical

My view on the rights and wrongs of the householder's actions are clearly stated and within the law. You come across as rash or juvenile.

 

Please explain. 

[Gordon R]

I rest my case.

[old'un]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

What was it henry said to you, "add a bit, a arm, a leg" 

Alright for him to do it when it suits his narrative! 

yep, I am beginning to see how he works.

[old man]

3 hours ago, henry d said:

 I really don't understand it; the law breakers, in this case both thieves and the car driver were breaking the law. Common sense would surely say that if you chase after someone for whatever reason, if you hurt them then you are at fault. If we don't take that on then you could quite easily distort that to leather ten shades out of anyone you don't like. 

Henry, again you misunderstand. I have no interest in any retribution method or aspect, still trying to understand why our system is so distorted to what we have.

None of it is fit for purpose?

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, old man said:

Henry, again you misunderstand. I have no interest in any retribution method or aspect, still trying to understand why our system is so distorted to what we have.

None of it is fit for purpose?

Henrys analogy is totally wrong anyway, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect a person or property, what is reasonable depends on the circumstances and could in extreme cases include taking a life if absolutely necessary. So Henry is incorrect, chasing someone doesn't automatically make you responsible for them getting injured, although you would need to justify it. 

[udderlyoffroad]

I haven’t watched the programme, but I certainly have seen the ensuing ruckus it’s caused on social media, including the victim’s response thanking members of the public for their support, both financial and emotional.

So apparently the victim should’ve offered no comment until his solicitor arrived.  Hard to do, but in case anyone wasn’t aware, this is absolutely what you must do.

Secondly, to my mind, the perceived injustice here has a very easy fix; Sentencing guidelines must be updated to reflect that, in all cases of burglary, a custodial sentence must be expected.  No suspended sentences, no community service, and consecutive terms must be the default.  If you break into houses, you are going to prison, end of.

Thirdly, the home secretary could order all police forces to pursue a ‘broken windows’ type policy, and finally order them to abandon the “College of Policing” ridiculous non-crime hate incident reporting, per the judicial review.

Both of the above could be done, without legislation, today.  
 

[12gauge82]

15 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I haven’t watched the programme, but I certainly have seen the ensuing ruckus it’s caused on social media, including the victim’s response thanking members of the public for their support, both financial and emotional.

So apparently the victim should’ve offered no comment until his solicitor arrived.  Hard to do, but in case anyone wasn’t aware, this is absolutely what you must do.

Secondly, to my mind, the perceived injustice here has a very easy fix; Sentencing guidelines must be updated to reflect that, in all cases of burglary, a custodial sentence must be expected.  No suspended sentences, no community service, and consecutive terms must be the default.  If you break into houses, you are going to prison, end of.

Thirdly, the home secretary could order all police forces to pursue a ‘broken windows’ type policy, and finally order them to abandon the “College of Policing” ridiculous non-crime hate incident reporting, per the judicial review.

Both of the above could be done, without legislation, today.  
 

Excellent post. 

[Rim Fire]

22 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Secondly, to my mind, the perceived injustice here has a very easy fix; Sentencing guidelines must be updated to reflect that, in all cases of burglary, a custodial sentence must be expected.  No suspended sentences, no community service, and consecutive terms must be the default.  If you break into houses, you are going to prison, end of.

I agree with this but unfortunately we would be like one of them prisons in Mexico ten deep in every cell 

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

I agree with this but unfortunately we would be like one of them prisons in Mexico ten deep in every cell 

And we would need a police force to manage it, together with a judiciary to process it. 

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

I agree with this but unfortunately we would be like one of them prisons in Mexico ten deep in every cell 

What is the point in prison if no one fears it ?

 

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

And we would need a police force to manage it, together with a judiciary to process it. 

We have those things , they just seem to prefer making sure their LGBTQ++ badges are on straight, and no one gets offended.
Meanwhile the victims of real crime take second place to the molly coddling of laughing scumbags getting a rehabilitation that will not work .
The numbers of re offenders speak for themselves.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - harsh, but realistic.

[Rem260]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I rest my case.

As usual when a explanation is requested. No response required.

[Scully]

31 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

I agree with this but unfortunately we would be like one of them prisons in Mexico ten deep in every cell 

I’m of the opinion that that is no reason  not to give a custodial sentence.
If overcrowding is one of the consequences of committing a crime, then so be it. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. 

[Rim Fire]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m of the opinion that that is no reason  not to give a custodial sentence.
If overcrowding is one of the consequences of committing a crime, then so be it. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. 

1. no you wouldn't but the woke brigade would be shouting human rights and

   28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

   What is the point in prison if no one fears it ?

   Well it don't stop them in America and they got the death penalty 

[Newbie to this]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m of the opinion that that is no reason  not to give a custodial sentence.
If overcrowding is one of the consequences of committing a crime, then so be it. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. 

^^^This 100%

[Rim Fire]

36 minutes ago, oowee said:

And we would need a police force to manage it, together with a judiciary to process it. 

Which we haven't got that's why we are in the state we are 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Rim Fire said:

Which we haven't got that's why we are in the state we are 

👍 This and there is so much stuff that they could sub out. Starting with firearms licencing to BASC.  There must be loads of this sort of process stuff that could be done in a better way.