Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To feel sorry for (and think the punishment is too long) for the 18 year old who threw the fire extinguisher in the protests

608 replies

LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake · 11/01/2011 13:56

2 years, 8 months in jail Shock

here

That's a looooong time. Is the reasoning supposed to be that it's a deterrent?

There are people with asbo's who cause no end of trouble and don't get sentences like this.

OP posts:
jonicomelately · 12/01/2011 11:38

I think deaths by driving and the sentences they attract are unfathomable to most people.

Condolences to those who have lost a loved one.

ChippingIn · 12/01/2011 11:45

I was suprised by it - and I'm on the fence re the length of it.

I think our whole system needs an overhaul.

NosyRosie · 12/01/2011 11:46

shouldnotbehere thank you. I've just read yours - what a shockingly unjust world this can be. Your poor friend and his parents Sad

2shoes · 12/01/2011 11:47

"theporkofpie Wed 12-Jan-11 11:30:36
I have only just joined the thread and not read all posts, but think that at 18 would it not occur to you that if you dropped a heavy object from a high building it could have devastating effects.

Maybe this might be a warning to people who think they can do what they like without thinking of the consequences to others."

sorry that is piffle(I like that word) I asked ds and his gf last night what they thought would happen if you did this, they both knew it could kill someone. they are both 18

theevildead2 · 12/01/2011 11:56

2 shoes Porkpie said "would it not?" Not "it wouldn't"

They agree with you!

2shoes · 12/01/2011 11:57

oops Blush you are right sorry

trice · 12/01/2011 11:59

I feel sorry for the lad and his family. I do think he was acting like a thug. Your average 18 year old would not be throwing things at the police. His mummy loves him but I bet his friends know that he is a hooligan.

I am not a fan of prison in general as it seems to be rather expensive and ineffective. What you do to punish, deter and rehabilitate such people I am not sure I know. I don't think the sentence is too harsh though - it will just be a gap year for him.

Pootles2010 · 12/01/2011 12:00

susie totally agree with you - a sentance for drunk driving should be same as killing a person by drunk driving - just because you're lucky enough that there aren't any cars around to hit, doesn't mean what you did was any better.

Same with this - he was lucky there wasn't someone standing where the extinguisher fell, doesn't mean that makes it any better! I think he's lucky he didn't get longer.

slhilly · 12/01/2011 12:01

There have been a lot of comments about how those posters who are sympathetic to this guy are only sympathetic because he's a middle class boy from a middle class family living in leafy suburbia etc.

I don't know why people think this.

There's not much biographical information out there to say whether he's working class, middle class or upper class. What info there is says that his mum is 37 and that he's the first in his family to have gone to university. Those two pieces of information, while hardly conclusive, do not particularly suggest a middle class background.

I would have the same reaction that the sentence is too heavy if he had a different background and if the context was not a student demo, so long as the act itself was the same. (I wouldn't have the same reaction if the act was chucking a concrete block onto a motorway, because contrary to what some posters have suggested, they're not equivalent acts -- chucking a concrete block onto a motorway can potentially create much more carnage. Both are bad, but one is much worse than the other)

Kungfupannda, this is is a bit misrepresentative:
"why are you astonished that I think that arguing about the police getting away with things is a straw man argument? It has nothing to do with sentencing tariffs."

You make it sound like your original argument was only about the police. But what you originally wrote was: "the whole "others got less for worse" or "the police have done worse things" is a massive straw man argument...." [my italics]

You thus suggested that sentencing tariffs were part of the strawman argument, not just whether the police are held to account.

Consistency of tariff is important. In my view, the balance between fitting sentences to particular circumstances and ensuring that more serious classes of crime attract more extensive punishment than less serious classes of crime -- should be a crucial objective of sentencing policy in delivering natural justice. You think the system is working well; I disagree: people who commit much more harm, such as killing someone when driving drunk, are punished much less severely, due to "individualising" of tariffs.

slhilly · 12/01/2011 12:01

There have been a lot of comments about how those posters who are sympathetic to this guy are only sympathetic because he's a middle class boy from a middle class family living in leafy suburbia etc.

I don't know why people think this.

There's not much biographical information out there to say whether he's working class, middle class or upper class. What info there is says that his mum is 37 and that he's the first in his family to have gone to university. Those two pieces of information, while hardly conclusive, do not particularly suggest a middle class background.

I would have the same reaction that the sentence is too heavy if he had a different background and if the context was not a student demo, so long as the act itself was the same. (I wouldn't have the same reaction if the act was chucking a concrete block onto a motorway, because contrary to what some posters have suggested, they're not equivalent acts chucking a concrete block onto a motorway can potentially create much more carnage. Both are bad, but one is much worse than the other)

Kungfupannda, this is is a bit misrepresentative:
"why are you astonished that I think that arguing about the police getting away with things is a straw man argument? It has nothing to do with sentencing tariffs."

You make it sound like your original argument was only about the police. But what you originally wrote was: "the whole "others got less for worse" or "the police have done worse things" is a massive straw man argument...." [my italics]

You thus suggested that sentencing tariffs were part of the strawman argument, not just whether the police are held to account.

Consistency of tariff is important. In my view, the balance between fitting sentences to particular circumstances and ensuring that more serious classes of crime attract more extensive punishment than less serious classes of crime should be a crucial objective of sentencing policy in delivering natural justice. You think the system is working well; I disagree: people who commit much more harm, such as killing someone when driving drunk, are punished much less severely, due to "individualising" of tariffs.

FellatioNelson · 12/01/2011 12:01

cantspel you may be right, but why are you right? Is it because as a general rule, middle class A level educated white boys from leafy suburbia don't find themselves in jail by the age of 18?

If it had been a black boy from the same kind of background the thread would have been here just the same.

Plenty of white boys (who are what we love/hate to call ASBO chavs on MN) and black boys for that matter, get jailed every day for violent disorder or other anti-socail crimes. We don't start threads about them because (sadly) there is nothing at all unusual or surprising about their stories.

smallwhitecat · 12/01/2011 12:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NorwegianMoon · 12/01/2011 12:17

he didnt kill anyone, you cant judge a case by what could have happened-thought police anyone?

what could have happened is not fact or evidence-it dousnt even exist

its appalling the sentence received the police who treated the protested so awfully should be the ones facing sentencing

cantspel · 12/01/2011 12:19

silhilly he is from Dibden Purlieu, Hants and by anyones definition that would come under leafy suburbia .
Dibden Purlieu is amongst the richest wards in the UK. (According to the Indices of Deprivation 2000 it is 247th richest out of 8414.

angemorange · 12/01/2011 12:25

Baby P's mother got 5 years; lodgers who tortured and killed him got less.

Throwing a heavy object off a building and no one was hurt - daft and dangerous but doesn't warrant long jail term.

Our priorities in this country are all wrong.

deepheat · 12/01/2011 12:27
  1. He knew that there were a lot of people directly below him. He actually took a look before he dropped it.
  1. He knew that a fire extinguisher dropped from that height would most likely kill someone if it landed on them.
  1. He went ahead and did it.

Sorry, but I'm happy enough with the sentence. Even his mother recognises that it is appropriate, painful as it is for her. You can say he wan't thinking, but I don't really see that as any excuse. He had the capacity to think and chose not to.

NancyDrew No, he didn't kill anyone, but that is simply lucky. People often are sentenced on the basis of what could have happened. It is covered by law.

FellatioNelson · 12/01/2011 12:27

I bet there are thousands of boys his age who have been involved in violent disorder and anti-social crimes where people have been hurt, time and time again but have been given chance after chance to reform, as putting them away is seen as an absolute last resort. We all know once those types of kids are inside the fight is over; crime and dysfunction has won, and society has lost. They will come out far worse than they went in, but what can you do when all attempts at help and reform are rejected and serious offending continues?

The difference with this boy (and the judge knows it) is that he is statistically unlikely to re-offend, or give us any more bother - so we can afford to make an example of him. He'll have a terrible time inside, and come out broken and contrite, his future severely blighted.

The more I think about this the more I think he has been very harshly treated.

cantspel · 12/01/2011 12:29

Tracey Connelly was ordered to be held indefinitely, until "deemed no longer to be a risk to the public and in particular to small children", with a minimum term of five years. That doesn't mean she was sentanced to just 5 years.

theevildead2 · 12/01/2011 12:29

As has been mentioned several times now.

You can judge a case by what COULD HAVE happened.

Everytime someone gets picked up for drink driving after going through a police check is proof of this.

Just drinking and driving even if you haven't harmed someone is illigal. Just like throwing a large heavy object on to a crowd because you can hurt someon.

If a terrorist set off a bomb and no one gets hurt.. we shouldnt arrest them???

cantspel · 12/01/2011 12:31

forgot to add that barker got 12 years along with a life sentance for a rape with a minimum sentence of ten years

FellatioNelson · 12/01/2011 12:32

They are just starting a discussion/phone-in about this on Radio2 now.

angemorange · 12/01/2011 12:35

cantspel - yes, acknowledge your point but other lodger who joined in torture free to get out this year....also, rape sentence was for another crime against another child.
Point is, there are many other people given 'lenient' sentences for far worse crimes.

theevildead2 · 12/01/2011 12:36

If this guy had been given a week as was mentioned by a previous poster what kind of message would that send in such a high profile case?

That the police are expendable? That white kids on their way to Uni get special treatment?

The law allows for this sentence and it was well deserved.

FellatioNelson · 12/01/2011 12:36

Sharma Pereira is talking perfect sense right now.

theevildead2 · 12/01/2011 12:37

The fact that some people get crap sentences for heinious crims is not a point.

Those people should suffer harsher punishments. This guy shouldn't get less..

Swipe left for the next trending thread