to believe stealing from Fortnum and Masons is just as bad

[longfingernails]

as stealing from a corner shop?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

David Lammy thinks otherwise... but really, would we expect any else from such an all-round ?

Impact on Victim does affect sentence, and has done since long before victim impact statements were brought in. (I'd left criminal practice behind before that happened). I can't imagine that victim impact statements add much to the evidence already before the court, but I'm sure there's a large number of victims who feel better for making one.

(Me, I just want five minutes in a locked room with the little scrote that tried to steal m car stereo, failed, and made off with my favourite hat instead.)

I'd be glad that some victims feel better for making an impact statement and feel that it enables them to be heard but I feel uneasy about that effecting sentence for all the reasons eloquently described by MyNeighbourIsHorrid. I'd also worry about some victims feeling that they have to do this to see justice, are they always disclosed to the accused or read out in court? Perhaps the victim of a sadistic sex attack wouldn't want to describe the impact on his or her life as it might give the perpetrator an extra power kick.

FenellaFellorick

I shouldn't have been rude but it wasn't poor interpretation. You were using a straw man argument. Saying stealing from the rich is less bad than from the poor doesn't mean that you can go and steal from rich neighbours Saying randomly committing Murder is worse than randomly committing assault does not mean I can go around attacking people at will because "at least they won't die". Surely you can understand that? The fact that they're both wrong doesn't mean one can't be even more wrong?

1

Of course I can understand that.

But that wasn't the point I was making in my post. I am not a thief. I have no intention of stealing from anyone. I won't use the words of someone seen to be in authority to justify things to myself because I don't steal, full stop. Certainly the point made upthread about gangs stealing from posh shops and the issues surrounding that level of organised crime and how that then affects the 'ranking' of shoplifting and its impact is a bloody good one.

I don't really know how else I can put it if I wasn't clear what I was saying in either of my posts about interpretations and justifications and the complexity of the issue of impact, so I think I'll leave it now, tbh.

Regarding straw man etc etc. If I was to argue that (and I probably shouldn't because I don't plan on coming back to the thread or I'll end up debating it all night) then I would disagree that saying that stealing from a small company is comparable to murder while stealing from a large company is comparable to assault. (and I understand that you are not literally comparing them, it is just an analogy meant to indicate severity) I would argue that shoplifting and shoplifting is not murder and assault, it is murder and murder. It's more like comparing the murder victims and finding that the loss of one is more significant than the loss of the other. I don't agree that that is true and I don't agree that people who want to steal are going to see that one is more bad. I believe that they will actually flip it right round in their self justification and will say well, it's better to steal from companies that can afford it and I don't think a minister should ever be saying ah, it's less serious to steal from posh shops because they can better absorb the losses. It's totally the wrong message to send out. We should not be factoring in the wealth of a company (or individual for that matter) when deciding how bad a crime was. It's just not on.

Surprise surprise, it appears the Mail may have been a bit economical with the truth.

If you look at this article which has his original quotes it appears that he's calling for tougher sentences for thieves and also for calls for the anti-social behavior, crime and policing act to be amended so that the impact on the victim is taken into account rather than just the value of the items stolen - as a theft from a mom 'n' pop store has a greater effect than on Fortnum and Masons.

Not quite what the Mail made out, was it?

Lammy says that shoplifting below £200 isn't prosecuted, and he wants that changed. The effect would be to increase prosecutions for low value thefts from smaller stores, such thefts mount up with repeat offenders.

Odd interpretation by
the Mail……..