Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Hmmm

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Strange, they don't seem to have trouble finding prison places for certain dangerous criminals but not others.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Strange, they don't seem to have trouble finding prison places for certain dangerous criminals but not others.

    That just undermines the whole justice system then, doesn't it? That a specific crime should give a specific punishment. If you were sentenced 3 weeks ago you will have received a harsher punishment than if you were sentenced today.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bail has nothing to do with the sentence- and the man will undoubtedly be jailed when he returns to court. Not remanding him in custody will actually keep him in prison for longer, as remand time counts towards the sentence.

    It sounds to me like the judge is just trying to get his mug in the papers- a man should only be remanded if there is a high chance of him committing further offences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Bail has nothing to do with the sentence- and the man will undoubtedly be jailed when he returns to court. Not remanding him in custody will actually keep him in prison for longer, as remand time counts towards the sentence.
    There was another case yesterday of a man caught downloading child pornography, where the judge mentioned the letter from the home office in his sentence as well. The point still stands though, do you really believe that snooping on some phone calls is punishable by a prison sentence? Do you reckon that the identity of the victim didn't influence the sentencing one bit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point still stands though, do you really believe that snooping on some phone calls is punishable by a prison sentence?

    In the circumstances relating to this case, absolutely. And it's a very light sentence anyway.
    Do you reckon that the identity of the victim didn't influence the sentencing one bit?

    Well the crime itself was motivated purely by the identities of the victims. Those in public life are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. The average person on the street isn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Bail has nothing to do with the sentence- and the man will undoubtedly be jailed when he returns to court. Not remanding him in custody will actually keep him in prison for longer, as remand time counts towards the sentence.

    It sounds to me like the judge is just trying to get his mug in the papers- a man should only be remanded if there is a high chance of him committing further offences.



    atm almost 25% of people in UK prisons are on remand

    in 1993, only 120 shoplifters were in jail, over 1200 are now



    this says a lot about why prisons are overcrowded
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And unless the government stands its ground against the constant 'lock em up and throw away the key' campaign by the Scum, things can only get worse regarding prisoner numbers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the circumstances relating to this case, absolutely. And it's a very light sentence anyway.
    Well don't complain when they have to let the paeodophile free after 1/2 his sentence is served to make room for this God-awful eavesdropper.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's an interesting one, though- is a man who downloads a bit of child pornography a bigger danger to state and society than someone who pries through the personal effects of national leaders for financial gain? I'd probably say not, although I know its not a popular opinion.

    Given the circumstances of the two cases, I'd say the decisions were about right, tbh. The eavesdroppers should have got more than four months porridge, too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, in the few cases where the child porn aspect has applied, it couldn't be that the judges are making political points now, could it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I heard talk about reintroducing prison ships to over come the overcrowding problems in prisons. That sounds like a sensible suggestion, rather than the governments' policy of releasing dangerous criminals into society. Of course we couldn't have rapists, paedophiles and murderers living in crampt conditions, much better to just free them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If prisons are so overcrowded, why omn earth do they put people in there that aren't considered a danger to society? Like the old lady who won't pay her council tax...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well don't complain when they have to let the paeodophile free after 1/2 his sentence is served to make room for this God-awful eavesdropper.

    The actions of some people at the NOTW were completely unacceptable and illegal and there has to be a proper deterrent. A fine would be insufficient, the media would probably knowingly break the law and see any fine as an 'operational cost' to their business.

    And it's ridiculous scaremongering frankly to believe that a paedophile will be automatically freed directly because of this sentence. (I'd imagine that those jailed in the NOTW case will end up in an open prison anyway, not usually the case for paedophiles).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The actions of some people at the NOTW were completely unacceptable and illegal and there has to be a proper deterrent. A fine would be insufficient, the media would probably knowingly break the law and see any fine as an 'operational cost' to their business.
    And there I was under the impression that prison was supposed to be about protecting the public from dangerous criminals. There are far more effective deterrents for non-violent criminals such as this, ones that don't take up expensive prison places. Do you really think that the rival newspapers wouldn't revel in photographing them doing community service, for example? And a fine doesn't have to be to the newspaper, you know? I can get fined if I serve alcohol to someone under 18. I don't see why the workers of newspapers can't be personally fined for breaking the law in the same way. The fact is that these men if you released them tomorrow, would not be a danger to the public. That should be the only measure in my opinion, because the deterrent and the punishment side of things can more effectively be served elsewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, in the few cases where the child porn aspect has applied, it couldn't be that the judges are making political points now, could it?

    Well of course, and so was I. But the point still stands that the reason that prisons are overcrowded is because there are thousands of people like the NOTW journalists, who shouldn't be in there ("because that's what the public wants" - Geoff Hoon on Question Time the other night - I notice he didn't say, "because that's the most effective way of cutting crime rates and rates of reoffending."). They just happened to be a convenient example at the time. If I'm honest, I would actually agree with Kermit that, depending on the precise circumstances, someone caught downloading child porn shouldn't automatically be put in prison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Prison is about all sorts of things - including acting as a detteremt. Peadophiles are probably still going to download and make child porn even if one of them's in jail (there's plenty in jail already so they know the risk)

    I suspect that by jailing some journo's it will act as a major detterent for any others who were thinking about hacking into mobile phone calls.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Prison is about all sorts of things - including acting as a detteremt. Peadophiles are probably still going to download and make child porn even if one of them's in jail (there's plenty in jail already so they know the risk)

    But it'll also protect the public.
    I suspect that by jailing some journo's it will act as a major detterent for any others who were thinking about hacking into mobile phone calls.

    True.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the circumstances relating to this case, absolutely. And it's a very light sentence anyway.



    Well the crime itself was motivated purely by the identities of the victims. Those in public life are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. The average person on the street isn't.

    I wouldn`t be so sure about that.

    Here are a couple of clues from that article:
    Both pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to conspiracy to intercept telephone calls "without lawful authority" between 1 November 2005 and 9 August 2006.
    "It is about grave, inexcusable and illegal invasion of privacy."

    Maybe you find it acceptable to be LEGALLY "vulnerable to this sort of thing" ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was nice to see ITN out and out lying about the sex offender out on bail, who they described as 'set free'.

    As to the main issue of prisons and over crowding, of course we have loads of people there for no good reason, the government listens to the Tabloids more than anything else, and if it was up to the Mail they'd jail everyone who looked a bit foriegn.

    About 75% of prisoners cant read above an 11-year-old level, a good half have a serious drink or drug problem..... the list goes on. If we want to cut the prison population we must cut re-offending, and that means serious money into rehabilitation.
Sign In or Register to comment.