www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-gloucestershire-45025042/cctv-shows-joyriders-crashing-stolen-bus
Drunk, steal bus, drive it 9 miles, crash it and write it off....
"The pair were given suspended sentences and banned from driving for two years at Bristol Crown Court."
WTF?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 1 Aug 18 at 00:11
|
|
A couple of thousand hours of enforced and monitored community service would have been a better approach.
|
>>A couple of thousand hours of enforced and monitored community service would have been a better approach.
Yes, as it is, they effectively got off.
Considering the amount of damage a custodial sentence must have been appropriate.
|
A custodial sentence just costs us even more money.
Might as well have the little s***s cleaning up graffiti, sweeping streets and painting stuff for a year. I's likely to be the only thing they'll ever contribute to society.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 1 Aug 18 at 00:40
|
|
....that's what you get when you keep pushing the message home that if you drink, you shouldn't drive, but instead take the bus........
|
In my world scroats like that would be on minimum wage, 5 days a week, working alternate weekends, 8 till 5 with 30 mins for lunch and a 15 minute break either side, doing community work.
Supervised picking up litter either in town or along country lanes, removing graffiti etc etc. Any day you don’t turn up at 8 AM adds another two.
Pointless sending them to jail. Far harder for them them having to work 5 days a week and kept occupied alternate weekends. Out in all weathers. A supervised group of these miscreants putting something back into society.
|
|
We have lost the plot with punishments in the UK. I was at a lookout point in a remote part of Australia. A group of youngsters in orange overalls were relaying a stone slab path in sweltering temperatures. On enquiring their supervisor said that they had been naughty and upset the local magistrate.
|
|
Pretty sure that the two got community hours as well. I think 200 hours each.
|
|
But not hard labour in 30°C temperatures.
|
>> But not hard labour in 30°C temperatures.
If they're in 30+ temperatures they're presumably subject to same safeguards as other Australians working in those conditions. Just as they would be in UK winters at opposite end of scale.
|
>> But not hard labour in 30°C temperatures.
>>
Well we have had a warm summer you know. You might have heard ;-)
|
"We have lost the plot with punishments in the UK."
We certainly have. In the case of criminal damage, it's easy - the fine should be enough to pay for the necessary repairs. If the miscreants don't have the money, then it should be paid for by hard labour at minimum wage.
|
>>In the case of criminal damage, it's easy - the fine should be enough to pay for the necessary repairs
Indeed. No reason a criminal liability should be less than a civil one.
|
>> Indeed. No reason a criminal liability should be less than a civil one.
But the criminal penalty accrues to the state. Should that be appropriated as compensation or should compensation be separate?
|
>>Should that be appropriated as compensation or should compensation be separate?
The recompense should goes to whoever loses out, be it victims or their insurers.
Everyone has future income, whether earned or benefits, so even if they are skint the money can be re-appropriated over whatever time period is necessary.
Might not be such attractive partner material if you're paying £50 a week for the next 10 years.
If the state wants a piece of the action too in the way of traditional fine, then so be it, but the whole fining system needs toughened up (see above) as unpaid fine levels are just silly*.
*around 15-20% of those imposed
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 3 Aug 18 at 22:32
|
>> *around 15-20% of those imposed
If they've got it down to 15-20% from levels north of 50% it was a few years ago they've done well.
Nearest analogy to fines is high risk lending. I suspect doorstep lenders would die for a 17.5% default rate.
|
>>If they've got it down to 15-20% from levels north of 50% it was a few years ago they've done well.
Not sure of historic levels but I think most fine defaulters in Scotland end up doing unpaid work/community service rather than going to jail.
|
>>The recompense should goes to whoever loses out, be it victims or their insurers.
No. A very, very big no.
Imagine the problems;
victim was wearing a Rolex, criminal pays £10,000
victim admits it was a knock-off, criminal pays £25
In all cases the mugger was just that, a mugger. But the fine is 400 times more depending on the watch?
How does that make sense?
|
>>How does that make sense?
In the same way as it makes sense that if I do something negligent but no one is harmed it costs me £0, but if I do the same thing and a kid is disabled as a result it costs me £££££££££££.
The state could/should still apply a 'punishment' fine on top of the damage done.
I suppose a vague corollary is the "proceeds of crime" law that means wealth that is presumed the result of criminal activity can be confiscated. The more successful at your crime, the more you lose.
Why not a "damages of crime" payback?
|
I'm all for nailing people to the wall for their crimes. But we should neither pay that money to the victim nor link the criminal's punishment to the value.
Beat senseless a bloke to steal his knock-off £25, slightly slap a bloke to steal his Rolex, £10,000
Get mugged by a criminal with a drawer full of drug money, get £10,000, get mugged by a penniless scroat, get 17p a month for the next squidrillion years.
That's a nonsense.
Make the criminal work. Hard. And make it something we benefit from. Cleaning, scrubbing, mending, digging, whatever.
Confiscate all proceedings from crime.
Have means assessed fines.
That'll do it.
Whether we should have a better compensation system for victims is a separate matter and should not be linked.
|
>>Whether we should have a better compensation system for victims is a separate matter and should not be linked
Not too sure I want victim compensation coming from the rest of the population when there's a perp - differs when no-one is apprehended of course.
Plenty of abuse of the criminal injury compensation scheme, at least back when I was a junior doctor: guy comes into casualty with a slash wound(s) - the scumbag ones would want stitches rather than glue or steristrips - the more stitches they got, the bigger their CICB payout.
Needless to say I strived to use steristrips and glue (not least because they are better than stitches anyway for most wounds that can be closed easily) much to the disappointment of a few chaps.
|
>> Not too sure I want victim compensation coming from the rest of the population when
>> there's a perp - differs when no-one is apprehended of course.
I take your point, but there's no reason why the compensation should not be taken by the funds generated from means-tested fines.
I just think that the shouñd not be a direct link between finacial value of a crime and the size of the punishment. I'd rather see punishment linked to the severity or impact of the crime and means-tested.
Neither would I want someone's compensation to be limited by what their personal criminal could afford.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 4 Aug 18 at 00:47
|
Bus joyriders - No FM2R
