To think that Adam White should have never been sent to prison and we're way too soft on career criminals!

[Unicornenthusiast]

I watched 24 Hours in Police Custody on catch up. A father and husband, a completely law abiding tax payer was chasing after two career criminals who had tried to burgle his garage, where he kept thousands of £ worth of tools he needed for work.

Adam White and the two thugs were in an RTC, the thugs were injured and Adam was sentenced to 22 months in prison for GBH. He lost his life savings, his job and his wife had an abortion because she wouldn't have been able to support a new baby and their two existing children whilst he was in prison.

The two thugs received community service...

Here's a link to the full story www.lbc.co.uk/news/adam-white-24-hours-in-police-custody-backlash-fund-raised-crooks-avoid-jail/

Yes he probably shouldn't have chased after the thugs, but he didn't actually intend to harm anyone. Violent domestic abusers and career criminals seem to escape prison sentences all the time, yet a hardworking father had a custodial sentence to set an example.

I feel so sorry for Adam and his wife, especially since they had to make the heartbreaking decision to end her pregnancy due to all this.

Totally agree.

They shouldn’t be allowed any compensation as their injuries were sustained due to the crime they had committed and the fact they were riding a stolen motorbike with no insurance themselves. They need to now live with the consequences of their actions.

Yes Adam shouldn’t have chased them but it does look like it was adrenaline led.

Clearly the issue here though is with repeat offenders. Clearly not enough is being done.

You do realise people have agency over their own actions right? You might get away with a heat of the moment decision that injurys someone but the moment you at time into the equation you're going to have to deal with the consequences. White had ample opportunity to stop his course of actions but didn't. Once you start allowing vigilant justice you're on a really slippery slope.

You think it's acceptable to chase after two burglars and run them off the road, so what else is reasonable? Would it be OK to chase them into their homes and knife them or is that too far? How about tracking them down a week later and cutting of their hands?

What about other crimes, are they fair game for vigilante justice and if so which ones? If I see someone texting and driving is it OK for me to spin them off the road?

Allow that sort of action won't improve justice or reduce crime, in fact it will do the opposite.

It would also do you the world of good to try and gain a bit of insight into real prison life instead of what you read on the DM.

Like most things in this country underfunding and poor government leadership are what is causing failures in the justice system. Plenty of studies have shown that the way prisoners are treated has a huge impact on reoffending rates, as does the support available upon release. Norway has one of the, if not the, lowest reoffending rates in the world and they pursue a rehabilitative justice system.

If you want to minimise crime that's the way to do it but too many people like you will screech about "soft-touch" for that to ever happen.

I had a burglar climb through my bedroom window while I was asleep and living alone (silly to have the window open, I know, but I was young). My reaction surprised me. I wanted to kill him. I scared him so much that he ran and I even ran after him for a bit. I caught him trying to break into my home 3 times, in the end and the final time I took the law into my own hands and jumped him and held something sharp to his throat. The police were useless of course. I even found out who it was, a local burglar who had been in prison for the same thing and they didn't do anything.
Unfortunately, we all hope we'll have clarity and do the right thing in the eyes of the law, especially if we have young children at home but instincts take over.

Perhaps because if he'd stayed home and reported it to the police they'd have given him a crime reference number and done no investigation at all. And the next night they would have been out again trying to burgle someone else.

I don't agree with what he did, but the solution here is that the police and CPS do their job and that serial offenders are put and kept in prison.

For those who think Adam did right, where does vengeance and vigilantism stop?

Again, I don't agree with it. But, many "rougher" areas used to be much safer for decent people when they were effectively "self-policing".

If we don't want people to do that, then the police and CPS need to do their job properly and get the criminals out of society. Investigate and prosecute properly, and the justice system impose appripriate sentences that are comparable to the severity of the crime, and take into account properly the likelihood of future offending based on a person's history of offending.

There also needs to be proper support for those leaving prison because it is proven that this shows reoffending is massively reduced. They should NOT go back to the same area, same contacts etc and should have someone checking in on them regularly and providing support with jobhunting etc: a scheme like this existed in the early 2000s with fantastic results but was then scrapped.

Thefts, burglaries and violent crimes will increase now as the do during every recession. What is the police's plan to deal with this properly? If they don't have one, then of course people will try to defend themselves, sometimes with tragic consequences. The fault here lies entirely with the "justice" system that provides no justice at all. Burglaries, theft, sexual assault and rape all effectively decriminalised. It's entirely predictable that people would then "take the law into their own hands".

Probably make little difference at all to people of their level of intelligence.

If you want to minimise crime that's the way to do it but too many people like you will screech about "soft-touch" for that to ever happen

I don’t think Norway’s system is going to work in the UK. Population is not diverse there and the social welfare system much stronger.

You will more likely have America’s experience with rehabilitative justice in blue states, which has just led to more crime.

Noone is advocating that criminals do what they want. However, truly decent people do not go off on vigilante missions. They think about how their actions may impact others, especially when vehicles are involved. A car can easily be a killing machine. He behaved like a thug. He is paying a high price, but he could have killed people and that is not ok.

What did Adam spend £50k on? His legal defence?

’However, truly decent people do not go off on vigilante missions’

I think that’s very harsh. I don’t think that any of us can know how we’d react to a situation like that. People who think they’d confront the burglars might well freeze - it’s a common reaction. People who are generally very calm and rational might find they react aggressively.

I don’t know anything about Adam White as a person and while I think it’s right that he’s held accountable for the consequences of his actions - he did cause serious injury - it’s entirely possible that he’s a decent, reasonable man who had a moment of madness in response to a stressful situation.

So if people who have learning difficulties/disabilities crack their skull, it makes no difference? What a stupid comment. Do you think that all criminals have low intelligence and those who do naturally have low intelligence (such as those who have LD's) are natural criminals? That used to be the attitude at the turn of the century.
A lot of the language used on this thread takes us back to a time when making an allegation against a man of ' good standing in the community', married, working, priest etc would have been a waste of time. Very few women would be believed, or victim blamed if the man was 'decent'. The working class had no chance against someone of a higher status etc etc.

Nope. I'm saying bright people don't tend to go around stealing vehicles and trying to burgle people repeatedly.

You do realise people have agency over their own actions right? You might get away with a heat of the moment decision that injurys someone but the moment you at time into the equation you're going to have to deal with the consequences.

I think the issue many are having is that only seems to apply to Adam White and not the criminals who have done this so often they're called career criminals.
They're not, nor does it appear they've had to in the past (being free and all to burgle Adam's house in the first place and then get caught in a car with no tax or insurance and now not locked up either) facing the concequences of their actions, they too had agency over their actions and too chose to break the law, likely because they knew there'd be no concequences, or even if caught they'd be minimal compared to the damage they cause to their victims. And theirs wasn't a spur of the moment, defensive decision. They chose to break into someone else's property with the intention of stealing their possessions for their own gain, and chose to make off on a stolen motorcycle not wearing helmets.
If we're going to rehabilitate criminals, we first need to put some effort into actually catching them and then rehabilitation, as it is even if caught, the concequences are so low they don't serve as a deterrent or rehabilitation. In fact these two are going to be rewarded with compensation.
It's really a rather lazy way to distribute justice, to harshly punish those who defend themselves because the justice system doesn't, to put people off doing that, rather than tackle the issue of the two thugs who made a life out of crime and lock them away to protect society or rehabilitate them so they don't offend again.

It's all about Adam's behaviour, how he should have been better, what he should and shouldn't have done, how we're apparently holding him to higher standards than the burglars and not about the chosen actions of the two people that started all this in the first place.

Totally agree with this.

Maverickess
It's all about Adam's behaviour, how he should have been better, what he should and shouldn't have done, how we're apparently holding him to higher standards than the burglars and not about the chosen actions of the two people that started all this in the first place.

Whichever Govt department or organisation for one reason and another it's become all about easy targets. Dealing with recidivists, tax dodgers, child support dodgers etc etc is often difficult and expensive so go for the low hanging fruit and hit those targets.

Adam's sentence was harsh but it may make the law abiding, like you and I, think twice about our actions. What's making everyone angry is the 'justice; dealt out to the pair of criminals won't make a single one think twice about the pain and misery they mete out by their behaviour.

He was wrong because he chased them, that was really stupid. But you're not wrong that it should never have happened in the first place and they should have done time for their part in it

The jury had to find him guilty because he did it!!

I was also enraged watching it but he shouldn't have done that. Obv if those scrotes weren't on his property attempting to rob him, they wouldn't have been injured, but we can't all go around behaving like that. They should also have been jailed for their part in it, they've both got criminal records for all sorts of shit and are a far more worry on the streets than Adam.

DH has a nice car on the drive, his pride and joy. I don't sleep as heavily as him and I sometimes hear voices outside. If I saw his car being stolen I wouldn't even wake him as I would worry he would do something stupid like this in the heat of the moment.

Don't forget the serious injury was in part due to one of the scrotes not wearing a helmet. The injuries wouldn't have been so severe if he'd worn one.

I believed AW when he said he lost control on the bend and clipped them. He said that from the beginning, even moments after the crash when he was clearly in shock.

I believe a dangerous driving conviction would have been appropriate, but GBH and a prison term? That's so wrong imo. Suspended, yes, but actual prison time, no.

I wonder what the jury think now after seeing the programme and if they still stand by their decision.

Can't believe all the apologists for the career criminals! 'Oh they didn't actually get a chance to burgle, they only went equipped'...
Am surprised no one's brought up that they probably had a hard childhood poor lambs and it's their way of life so what's to be expected.

The flip side is thou if they had been sentenced severely for their previous trips to court they wouldn't have been on the streets to continue their life of crime. If we had a 3 strikes and out syste,m where they had gone down for 5 years for a 3rd burglary then they wouldn't have been able to provoke this man in the first place.

That's quite a stretch, must have taken some mental gymnastics that. 🙄

I think it’s more the fact that the criminals actually didn’t get a prison sentence and they got enjoy living with this family, carry on living their ‘life’ and one had a new born. They got all their defence paid for by the tax payer, whilst Adam had to spend his life savings on paying for a defence. Adam helped the police in their interviews, whilst the others were ‘no comment’ interviews.

None of this would not have happened if it wasn’t due to the actions in the criminals in the first place.

What is "proper justice" exactly?

Hellhole prisons with no luxuries or entertainment?

Draconian sentences for all offenders? 10 years and a hand chopped of for burglary maybe?

I wouldn’t go as far as amputating limbs, but I think we should be looking at minimum 10 year sentences for any offences that involve breaking into family homes, if we have to cram our prisons to bursting point to achieve that, so be it.