Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shaker on May 30, 2016, 04:51:32 PM
-
http://goo.gl/inq2wb
Also here: http://goo.gl/iDhBRm
-
Of course it's sickening but it's one of those things that says far more about the specimen wearing it than anyone or anything else.
What's raised my eyebrows is that I now know we have an offence in this country of "displaying abusive writing... likely to cause distress". By whose definition?
-
http://goo.gl/inq2wb
Also here: http://goo.gl/iDhBRm
Certainly sickening - but a a criminal offence? Have we totally sacrificed freedom of speech in the name of political correctness?
Though I can see that he might need to be taken into protective custody.
-
Agreed with both responses so far.
But we have started to set what I believe is a dangerous precedent in this country: http://goo.gl/aR3c9k
and
http://goo.gl/kwhJIP
Jo Glanville, director of the writers' network English Pen, said of Riley: "He hasn't incited violence, there's nothing around public order, so it's purely for being tasteless. I think we're seeing something new here. It's a chill on freedom of expression. Causing some distress to members of the public shouldn't be enough to get you a custodial sentence."
Lawyer and legal blogger Lyndon Harris described Newsome's case as "a knee jerk reaction by the CPS" and told the Guardian the law is "failing miserably. At what point does unpleasant become criminal? You're just locking people up for saying nasty things. If someone said that to you in the pub and you went to the police, they'd tell you to go away."
(My emphasis).
-
Certainly sickening - but a a criminal offence? Have we totally sacrificed freedom of speech in the name of political correctness?
Though I can see that he might need to be taken into protective custody.
Whilst I would agreed wholeheartedly that this moron could have have found a more appropriate way of advertising the company I have to admit that I am more and more offended by poeple who take offence at just about anything any one else says or does these days, but scream breach of civil rights or freedom of speech when someone/anyone objects to something that they say.
-
Agreed with both responses so far.
But we have started to set what I believe is a dangerous precedent in this country: http://goo.gl/aR3c9k
Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!
-
Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!
... but charged for causing "harrassment, alarm and distress" with a T-shirt.
-
Whilst I would agreed wholeheartedly that this moron could have have found a more appropriate way of advertising the company I have to admit that I am more and more offended by poeple who take offence at just about anything any one else says or does these days, but scream breach of civil rights or freedom of speech when someone/anyone objects to something that they say.
I think there is a 'slippery slope' effect. Once you start arresting people for displaying an offensive slogan you get closer to arresting them for displaying a political slogan - or indeed, expressing any kind of political opinion.
-
Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!
In certain quarters he probably risked being torn 'limb from limb'
-
In certain quarters he probably risked being torn 'limb from limb'
As several have commented already - if he was stupid to wear the T-shirt in Worcestershire, he'd have to have been suicidal to have worn it in Liverpool.
But that fact in itself reveals an interesting albeit depressing angle about the mindset of some people.
Further thought: if someone is arrested for wearing such a shirt (or carrying a banner/placard etc.) and they are charged with inciting violence (upon themselves, by others), who is at fault - them for displaying a message deemed offensive, or the others for responding to words with physical violence? To me it says something about people that they don't meet offensive speech with other speech but with physical aggression.
-
Well yes, this is something we are so rubbish at now - taking personal responsibility and expecting others to do likewise. If I give offence it's your responsibility whether to take it or not and what to do with it if you do.
-
... but charged for causing "harrassment, alarm and distress" with a T-shirt.
No this is the bloke in your third URL.
-
Slightly different but related example. Man commits offence; receives suspended sentence; comments upon case on social media; is recalled by judge and imprisoned for "gloating": http://goo.gl/fYv5l8
Twelve months for what somebody deems to be "gloating"? Really?
-
The law is an ass.
-
Quite frankly a suspended sentence for using someone's head as a football isn't that great.
-
I don't disagree. But nevertheless, that was the sentence he received, and it disturbs me greatly that having received that sentence anyone can in effect be dragged back to court and imprisoned for something like "gloating."
-
Yes, if it were deemed as harassment then that is a criminal offence. Or maybe some kind of contempt of court charge. 'Gloating' isn't a criminal offence as far as I'm aware.
-
We give lesser sentences if people show regret. Now either that's wrong, or if an earlier expression of remorse is shown to be false by some means then surely it would have an effect on sentencing?
-
Apparently it's because of this:
Truro Crown Court was told earlier that under Section 155 of the Power of Sentencing Act 2000 the court had the power to change a sentence within 66 days of it being passed.
-
That's the capacity to do so, but not, in this case, the reason.
-
Is it clear that the court needed a reason as such?
More dick-headed legislation from the Blair government, and this one with devastating and disturbing consequences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410539
-
It appears the recall to the court is a part CPS guidelines.
Prosecutors should give consideration to using the "slip rule" where defendants "celebrate", on the steps of the court or on social networking sites, the leniency of the sentence in circumstances where their comments conflict with statements made in mitigation regarding remorse etc
Full text here.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/
-
... which to me comes across as being like Minority Report in reverse - not psychically tracking down criminals before they commit a crime, but punishing a criminal twice after having done so.
-
So if their remorse is false and the sentencing is based on that, it should affect the sentence?
-
So if their remorse is false and the sentencing is based on that, it should affect the sentence?
It seems highly dubious to me. For starters, in the absence of proven telepathic powers you can never tell for sure, beyond any doubt, that contrition is genuine in the first place.
Secondly, you could end up with a ludicrous infinite regress of remorse and retraction - "I'm really sorry for what I did wrong ... haha, no I'm not! ... No, honestly, really I am ... fooled you!"
-
It seems highly dubious to me. For starters, in the absence of proven telepathic powers you can never tell for sure, beyond any doubt, that contrition is genuine in the first place.
Secondly, you could end up with a ludicrous infinite regress of remorse and retraction - "I'm really sorry for what I did wrong ... haha, no I'm not! ... No, honestly, really I am ... fooled you!"
So therefore given that we shouldn't make any difference between someone expressing remorse and not for sentencing in your opinion?
-
It's supposed to cover 'further information' that the court wasn't aware of at the time of sentencing.
Any criminal can display false contrition. Equally it's conceivable that stupid 'gloating' happens in the contrite as a result of too many beers and/or egging on by mates. What this seems to say is that 'further information' includes things that haven't actually happened at the time of sentencing.
-
So therefore given that we shouldn't make any difference between someone expressing remorse and not for sentencing in your opinion?
Contrition's easy to fake and not everyone is stupid enough to blow it on Facebook when they get home.
Why not issue an adequate sentence in the first place?
-
Contrition's easy to fake and not everyone is stupid enough to blow it on Facebook when they get home.
Why not issue an adequate sentence in the first place?
What's 'adequate'? Note i'm not taking a position here I just asked the question about should we make any difference in sentencing between those who 'show' remorse and those who don't in sentencing. Any opinion?
-
"Adequate" is a sentence sufficient to deter re-offending.
If someone is genuinely contrite then obviously a lighter sentence can be imposed. If they are "gloating" about how lightly they got off or the impact on the victim, then it seems perfectly reasonable to drag them back and increase the sentence - especially in the case of a suspended sentence.
-
Just deterrence? No retribution? Does that mean for the same crime 1 day and life would be reasonable, if that was the deterrents needed by different criminals?
-
Obviously the law itself states minimum/maximum limits for most offences. There is an element of "retribution" in most cases but difficult to account for it separately- should it be affected by any "gloating" factor?
-
Obviously the law itself states minimum/maximum limits for most offences. There is an element of "retribution" in most cases but difficult to account for it separately- should it be affected by any "gloating" factor?
I'm not linking it to 'gloating". You stated that 'adequate' was about deterrence. I asked you if you didn't see it as also linked to retribution. Do you think that if a day would deter one person as a sentence and a lifetime another person, then that's what should determine their sentence?
-
Yes, essentially. The main point of the sentence is to change the future behaviour. However "retribution" for past events may be needed as emotional compensation for victims or to "assert the authority of the law" - and I would expect it to be considered in sentencing.
If someone kills a person by driving carelessly, say, the penalty is usually much harsher than for just driving dangerously. In fact, I think it may actually, somewhat illogically, be a different offence.
-
I think deterrent is important if there's a chance it will avert harm. It should be a given that if you use someone's head as a football - and we all know what the consequences of that can be - you get a custodial sentence. I don't see the point in custodial sentences for offences like receiving or handling stolen goods even if the person then boasts about leniency on FB.
-
I don't disagree. But nevertheless, that was the sentence he received, and it disturbs me greatly that having received that sentence anyone can in effect be dragged back to court and imprisoned for something like "gloating."
The original suspended sentence might have been handed down on the basis of various assumptions that the Facebook post proved were not true. Defence council might have argued leniency based on the defendant's remorse.
Just because the judge said the post was gloating doesn't mean it was the only reason for the sentence change.
-
On a similar thread on the old Beeb board I posted that I was in favour of custodial sentences for the purposes of 'isolation' first and 'rehabilitation' secondary; custodial sentences are to isolate the law-breakers from the law-abiding. I have seen no view whatsoever yet expressed to give me reason change that view
Were I to have the power to do so I would leave the problems caused by the over-crowding of prisons in this way to those who can solve said problem by doing absolutely nothing - the law-breakers! Stop breaking the law and the problem of overcrowded prisoins solves itself. At the moment an awful lot of law-breakers are betting on a non-custodial sentence precisely because of do-gooder social workers pleading that subjecting them to an over-crowded will be bad for their poor little client, regardless of the nastiness of the crime with which they were charged and found to be guilty of.
-
I know of no evidence to suggest that British citizens and residents are inherently more "criminal" than people in other, similar, countries but it does seem that we have tendency to incarcerate more people for longer than do other countries. (I do not include the USA in this comparison.)
What concerns me is the cost of incarceration - almost £40,000 per inmate per year. And the number of prisoners appears to be growing. At a time when public services are being subjected to harsh cost cutting measures but increasing incarceration appears to be immune from scrutiny (I may well be wrong.)
The use of imprisonment as a means of retribution is certainly justified but is there any evidence that prison acts as a deterrent? I remember as an undergraduate nearly half a century ago considering the lack of any evidence supporting this notion. After all, if it were a deterrent it would put people off committing crimes - which it clearly does no.
I can think of many situations where a custodial sentence is unnecessary: the shame of public exposure and denunciation may be punishment enough - especially where the offender is well-known in a community.
There are some offences which should only be punished by removal from society and - in some cases - prolonged imprisonment is entirely appropriate, but in many cases it does seem to me that incarceration is a knee-jerk response by the judge.
One thought that I have had is that judges should have a prison budget for all cases where prison is an optional punishment. And when a judge exceeds his or her budget, he or she should be made to give a public justification of sentencing habits.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf
-
Bit of an insensitive twerp but not a criminal.
ippy
-
I know of no evidence to suggest that British citizens and residents are inherently more "criminal" than people in other, similar, countries but it does seem that we have tendency to incarcerate more people for longer than do other countries. (I do not include the USA in this comparison.)
What concerns me is the cost of incarceration - almost £40,000 per inmate per year. And the number of prisoners appears to be growing. At a time when public services are being subjected to harsh cost cutting measures but increasing incarceration appears to be immune from scrutiny (I may well be wrong.)
The use of imprisonment as a means of retribution is certainly justified but is there any evidence that prison acts as a deterrent? I remember as an undergraduate nearly half a century ago considering the lack of any evidence supporting this notion. After all, if it were a deterrent it would put people off committing crimes - which it clearly does no.
I can think of many situations where a custodial sentence is unnecessary: the shame of public exposure and denunciation may be punishment enough - especially where the offender is well-known in a community.
There are some offences which should only be punished by removal from society and - in some cases - prolonged imprisonment is entirely appropriate, but in many cases it does seem to me that incarceration is a knee-jerk response by the judge.
One thought that I have had is that judges should have a prison budget for all cases where prison is an optional punishment. And when a judge exceeds his or her budget, he or she should be made to give a public justification of sentencing habits.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf
Don't be daft! Enough people who should be imprisoned are not already. Don't make it any worse.
I really must try and find statistics on crimes committed by people who should have been jailed but were not; crimes committed within the time period of the sentence that they should have got!
I seem to remember, way back. a boy/youth who had committed over 500 burglaries, had been charged and taken to court about 30 times, and had never served a day. His "take" was calculated at about £150K.
This is the downside of your post!