Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

To think our courts are too soft.

14 replies

Sickoffrozen · 14/04/2015 08:09

I was just reading a story of a criminal who robbed a 93 year old man, pushing his to the floor and robbing his wallet. The judge said the man was that frail, he could have died.

This criminal has 21 previous convictions and 49 recorded crimes.

There surely comes a time when people like this deserve no more chances because it is clear they will just carry on offending.

He got 30 months and will be out in 15....

What's the betting he will be back in front of a judge within 2 years..

OP posts:

Icimoi · 14/04/2015 08:11

Remember when the newspapers print stories like this they never give all the facts, and in particular they never seem to point out that judges are subject to strict limitations on the sentences they can impose. If sentences are too soft, it is in fact usually Parliament that is to blame, not the courts.

ThinkIveBeenHacked · 14/04/2015 08:15

Yep agree with this. Judges have parameters they have to work within. They also didnt come up with the Good Behaviour rule. Which is a properly shit rule as tbh prison should be set up to insist on Good Behaviour. So a reward of half a sentence in return for good behaviour is (imo) disgusting.

sentences should be X Years with additonal weeks/months/years able to be added on for Bad Behaviour.

Morelikeguidelines · 14/04/2015 08:27

Agree with first two posters re limitations on judges and that they did not come up with release at half way stage.

Also newspapers notoriously report everything wrongly when it comes to court cases.

Original poster

Sickoffrozen · 14/04/2015 08:34

Maybe so but then the law is wrong.

21 convictions = no more chances in my opinion!

OP posts:

ThinkIveBeenHacked · 14/04/2015 08:37

Yes but sadly you cant say "21 petty crimes so lock him up and throw away the key!" - presumably if he has 21 priors he has also had 21 punishments (even if they are "just" fines/community service/suspended sentences)

AuntieStella · 14/04/2015 08:40

"Maybe so but then the law is wrong."

Yes, it's those who legislate and those who set the sentencing rules and the early release policy who need to be held accountable for actual or perceived failings.

listsandbudgets · 14/04/2015 08:45

Also the judge had to take mitigating circumstances into account. There could be something going on in the background we know nothing about. IMHO there is no excuse for a crime like that but maybe the judge knows something we don't

User100 · 14/04/2015 09:01

I don't know about this case (and the reporting is probably missing out key details in pursuit of a good headline) but the UK has one of the highest prison populations in Europe so it's hard to argue we're too lenient. I think the point your post does hit on is that reoffending is too high and we need to do more work on rehabilitation in prison and see it primarily as a place for that not primarily as a punishment.

sebsmummy1 · 14/04/2015 09:06

We don't have enough jails or cells basically. So because Governments do not want to build more and employ the required staff they changed legislation so nasty bastards like you describe cannot be adequately punished as they are considered petty criminals.

Obviously once he kills someone, and if he targets pensioners that will no doubt happen in due course, the jockey system will be able to lock him up for longer.

I read stories most days of the most shocking crimes that see the person go down for such a short time. Then half that for good behaviour. It is disgusting and as usual the victims do not see justice done.

sebsmummy1 · 14/04/2015 09:06

*court system

BarbarianMum · 14/04/2015 09:20

I do think that the courts are too soft on violent crime but I don't belive in 'X strikes and you're out' type sentencing either. I don't think jailing someone for life for repeated shoplifting, for example.

Certainly what this case shows is that this man is not being successfully rehabilitated - longer jail for sentence may be one part of the answer but it does really depend on what is going on.

26Point2Miles · 14/04/2015 09:26

What could be going on in the background? Drugs maybe. The law is too soft on druggies imo

DoraGora · 14/04/2015 09:32

The practical problem, apart from paying for incarceration, is that a sufficient number of prisoners would necessitate an endless prison building programme. Well, either that or stack the buggers one on top of the other (and have a permanent riot squad on standby in the governor's office.)

alwaysstaytoolong · 14/04/2015 22:39

The 'time off for good behaviour' thing is a myth. The sentence given (unless a minimum tariff is given) is THE sentence.

But the sentence is always (unless minimum tariff in custody) half in custody and half in the community on probation with restrictions that could lead to recall to custody if breached.

The sentence is always completed but for everyone sentenced (without minimum sentence or IPP sentence) they are given a release from custody date on the day they are sentenced which is half way through the sentence.

And it's halfway because the sentence is always half custodial and half in the community but they are still under sentence at that point until they've served the time in community under probation and they have restrictions and things they have to comply with e.g drug tests, educational training.

Time off for good behaviour does not exist legally in the UK but is a common belief.

Flip