OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

I understand your visceral response to particular crimes. but why are the lives of children, policemen/women, or victims of terrorism meriting a higher level of punishment than the wife/husband/partner battered to death by their other half, the old person living at home killed by burglars, the bank clerk shot by a robber?

Good point Staines. But at some point individuals have to take personal responsibility for their actions. At most, for me, this can offer a part explanation of their crimes, but not an excuse for them.

 

The blunt truth is that the European Laws that now govern all sentencing means, regardless of the majority of public opinion, that the death penalty will never return. The fact that whole life sentences are now not permitted means 'justice' is getting softer and softer. The only way a person can be detained indefinitely is by means of them being of 'diminished responsibility', however, there is more and more likelihood of these cases being challenged by the detainees to the point at which they may released in the end.

It is a fascinating point that many people view the decline in behaviour and subsequent increase in crime as being a consequence of the removal of corporal punishment in schools, how many of you who are from schools of the 60s would concur with this view?...

 

In America, i think, (this is why i steered clear until now as i can never be too sure of my facts!) murders are dealt with on different levels depending on the circumstance surrounding it. Murder 1 2 and 3
For example a husband who beats his wife to death having discovered an affair would not receive the same punishment as a child killer would.
It does not boil down to who was killed but more about how premeditated and planned the murder was or if it was just heat of the moment.
Your average burglar is not going to set out to kill the elderly occupants of the home he is burgling but a fight may ensue leading to a tragedy if he were to be discovered.
This instance although fully deserving of a "life" sentence does not fall into the same category for me as someone who snatches a child off the streets with the sole intention of murder on their mind.
Also by the same rational the murder of a bank teller in a high pressure situation such as a heist would not be viewed the same as a cold calculated terrorist plot to kill or maim hundereds of people.

In short ALL murder is punishable but not ALL murder is punishable by death, in my view at least.....

 

Delighted to hear it and happy to concede on the point.

 

A stunningly good and concise post, Soops.

 

The problem with this is that crime is falling.

Both sets of crime figures, the British Crime Survey, which measures people's experience of crime, and the police recorded crime figures show continued substantial falls in offences bringing the risk of becoming a crime victim to a 30 year low.

 

The crime figures are 'recorded crime' figures which can easily be manipulated. Many offences now are dealt with without even a caution. How many minor offences such as vandalism of personal property are never reported? When I was a Facilities Manager break-ins often failed to get a response from the Police and when they did turn up they were just going through the motions.

No government is going to want crime figures going up and all Chief Constables will do whatever necessary to facilitate this...

 

The British Crime Survey takes into account crimes that were not reported to the police.

 

Yes but Daily Mail readers want Jaywalkers flogged to death.

 

There is definitely a division between mental illness (schizophrenia etc) which is treatable and sometimes controllable for life, but not 'curable' and those with personality disorders (such as sociopaths) who are wired wrongly and cannot be effectively treated (as far as I know - I believe one of the Belfasts on here has genuine knowledge in this area). There has been a long debate between secure mental health services (which include Broadmoor and Rampton) as to where those with personality disorders should be held - there or in prisons. Argument is that if you can't treat 'em you shouldn't use NHS resources on them. The counter argument is -they are clearly too nuts even for the prison system. The irony is the prevalence of serious mental illness in prisons is huge, as evidenced by the massive amounts of heavy duty anti psychotics used there (these are of course also very effective sedatives).

Anyway, I think the public good argument is admirably utilitarian in these circumstances Uber.

 

I was 'slippered' a fair few times at my state primary school in the late sixties. Even at that young age I reasoned that people who could not influence my behaviour using rational argument and force of personality deserve their faces smashed in.

 

Fair enough Congleton I just think that the punishment should be determined by the nature (premeditation, sadism involved etc etc) of the crime, not the identity of the victim.

 

Hmmm... You are correct about this, of course, Stroller. But there's something about the perception of crime, the prevalence of anti-social behaviour, the way some neighbourhood are blighted by such things, that doesn't make statistics ring true. I know it sounds weak.

But it always seems to be the case that once certain things are run by statistics those accountable do their damnedest to manage (manipulate) the figures down. Soops is correct, as I understand it, in his experience of the lethargy and apathy of the police 'service'. A police officer - should probably be renamed 'police social worker and thought crimes investigator' - knows that investigating a relatively minor crime and arresting the perp these days involves yards of paperwork and desk time; time that he possibly thinks could be better spent dressed in his paramilitary uniform and '**** off' baseball cap, looking the bollocks in his Beema with the US siren blaring. So cautions are now issued for a number of things that were once thought serious crimes. This will be shouted down, but I'm pretty sure that there have been recent cases of (the accusation of) rape that have been dealt with by a police caution. (I will look this up, unless others can corroborate this for me... But will apologise and retract this if not proven and outrages anybody)*

*Supplemental: I've just looked it up and it's true. Example: http://www.nottinghamshire.police.u...encs of rape and sexual assault 2008-2013.pdf

 

.

 

I still get slippered on Friday nights ... Its Lush

 

How did I miss all this quality debate?

For what it's worth, I don't believe in the death penalty (as much for reasons of the vengeful psyche of would-be hangmen) but find a swing in opinion fascinating (did someone say 53% in favour)..

High profile crimes will have a bearing but I also suspect that economic factors are a factor. Definitely casual racism and general anger seem more prevalent during hard times.

I believe that the ultimate solution is a reduction in quality of life (not beyond human rights necessity) to make prisons a genuine deterrent is needed to first reduce overcrowding and, further, to allow prosecution of petty crimes that are almost tolerated due to the understandable reluctance to build prisons.

I also think that the school adage of "go and think about what you've done" is paramount in terms of convicts having isolated time to reconcile their actions with the consequences to both themselves and their victims.

Nothing too radical I'm afraid but I've read this whole thread tonight and felt compelled to wade in.

 

The perception that crime levels have increased is not borne out by the statistics. I don't doubt that Sooper is right when he says that the police are motivated to under-report crime, but the British Crime Survey, which includes crime that wasn't reported to the police, also shows crime having reduced over the last 30 years.

As to the 'rape' accusations dealt with by police caution, what is not shown in the stats are the circumstances surrounding the potential rape. When I was 19, I started a long-term relationship with a girl who was 15. Our sexual relationship, wholly consensual and within a loving relationship, was, at the beginning, illegal. My girlfriend was deemed too young to consent to sex, and I was therefore, in the eyes of the law, a rapist. No complaint was ever made against me, but it is easy to envisage a similar situation where parents report the relationship to the police. I would have thought that a caution would be appropriate in those circumstances.

 

Wow, not happy with the filth are you? I have no doubt there is some truth in the massaging of numbers, its what you get when accountability for performance and clear targets are introduced. The NHS is equally if not more guilty in this respect. Having said that, I have pretty clear targets and don't feel the need to falsify the results at all - some I hit, some I miss and on the basis of that I have an argument about how much more (if any) I'll get paid next year. Has the government stopped the wholly venal practice of public sector workers getting annual pay increments (in addition to inflation rises, which I believe are frozen) regardless of performance? I ****ing hope so.

My personal experience of the police recently has been pretty positive - very helpful with some local low level disturbances/petty vandalism we and neighbours were experiencing, with follow up phone calls to make sure action had worked, and a few weeks ago my son's wallet was found on the street (only thing of value in it his bus pass) and was returned by a police officer (male) to our house - at 4.00 in the morning. I'm sure this was to avoid the paperwork of recording the whole thing, but he did not seem to get the potential impact on parents of a 17 year old boy staying away from home of a knock on the door from the old bill in the wee small hours. Bracing.

Those rape and sexual assault caution stats are disgraceful. I get your point Stroller, but if these are attacks reported by (alleged) victims, as opposed to the 'statutory rape' type consensual thing, they must deserve full investigation.

Overall its not pleasant out there, but I still vaguely recall England being a much darker and generally more violent place in the 70s.

 

That is not an uncommon story, Stroller. I could recant something similar. But if it was suggested to me that I had technically committed a crime under those circumstances I couldn't argue. I might argue that to call it the r-word was OTT - it certainly wasn't in either my case or yours, I would say - but it is an inescapable fact that the law puts the current age of consent at 16 years.

I must have a gander at how the BCS is compiled, unless you have the time to set it out briefly here. I agree with you that perception and data gathered are inconsistent, but am interested in why this might be the case. Perhaps it is that confidence in the police 'service' (why can't it revert to a 'force' again?) and criminal (in)justice system is at some low?

Briefly back to antisocial behaviour, mindless acts of vandalism and petty crime, if I may? It is (again) my perception that much of this escapes capture either by official police statistics or the BCS. I reckon many people in areas most blighted recognise the futility of reporting such incidents to the police and possibly seldom call them to mind when the BCS comes a-calling for similar reasons; it's just become a sorry part of their lives.

When I was on holiday in August I got a note from a neighbour to tell me that my car (along with others) had been vandalised overnight. It was GCSE results night and the consensus was that it was teenagers 'celebrating' their results. It cost me money. The police were apparently called, turned up, said there was nothing they could do and pissed off sharpish for a cocoa and digestive. I don't for one minute expect this incident to feature in any crime statistic, whether office a or otherwise; and I believe it typical of the sort of crap that was once taken seriously by our official guardians, but is now too insignificant to bother about.

Thoughts?

 

The point is that the bare statistics don't tell the full story - they don't differentiate between complaints made by potential victims and those that may have been made made by third parties. Kenneth Clarke got into hot water a little while back for suggesting that some 'rapes' were less serious than others. It seems to me that this is entirely sensible - the consensual situation at one end of the scale and horrendous violent attacks at the other. The more complicated cases, perhaps where the woman goes to bed with a fella and then decides that she doesn't want sex after all, or maybe is too drunk to be capable of consenting, would fall somewhere between.