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.

Its absolutely this. It's shocking that the actual criminals didn't get a custodial sentence. I agree that sentences for burglary should be much harsher - definitely significant jail time as right now there is no deterrent at all.

If I'm ever on a jury deliberating a case such as this, I won't convict the victim.

You can't be held accountable for coming to the 'wrong' decision. Unfortunately, too many people clearly think they have to make the 'right' decision and we end up with cases like these.

Lawyers should be free to tell the jury 'if you don't think the accused has actually done anything wrong, you're free to return a Not Guilty verdict.' The powers that be don't want people to know that, though, so it's illegal.

Spread the word!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Charlielr
They got all their defence paid for by the tax payer, whilst Adam had to spend his life savings on paying for a defence.

The little of our justice system that works only works for the poor and the rich. Those in the middle get the justice they can afford, because of the massive cuts to legal aid. If Adam had been found not guilty there would be no guarantee his legal expenses would be covered. Our justice system can be as effective at leaving those caught in it destitute and distraught as a criminal act on them can.

I can recommend reading The Secret Barrister book, though it's often not to good for the blood pressure.

I noticed that during the interview it showed that the lawyer he’d had to pay for did nothing. He shouldn’t have chased them admittedly; he should have left them to carry on supporting their expanding families with further crime with no consequences or impedance by the police. When the career criminals were interviewed they had a lawyer butting in and they went “no comment” and got away with it all. The one with the head injury wasn’t wearing a helmet and all their injuries were arguably self inflicted. I think Adam was guilty but he was the one that should have got community service.

So you're increasing prisons terms but just for burglary offenses? That doesn't seem very "just" to me. If you want "proper justice" you'd need to increase terms across the board, but that would mean any future Adam White would be looking at 22+ years inside instead of 22 months.

Increasing prison sentences also does nothing to address the underlying causes of crime and increases the liklihood of turning petty criminals into hardened ones with zero prospects when they're eventually released.

This is typical leftoid brainrot.

Yes, I would like to see sentences go up across the board, for example, I think sex offenders should be incarcerated for life. However, we were talking about burglary.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for defending themselves, their families, or their property. If someone breaks into your house I support your right to execute them if you want to. It’s natural law.

I hope that clarifies my position.

If the career criminals had been locked up, they wouldn't have attempted to burgle his home, so Adam White wouldn't have ended up in court.

It is the soft sentencing, and abandonment of the law abiding, which leads to vigilantism.

singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/committing-robbery-singapore-penalties/

What are the Penalties for Committing Robbery? ^

A person found guilty of robbery will be sentenced to a jail term of 2-10 years, along with caning of at least 6 strokes under section 392 of the Penal Code.

If the robbery had been committed between 7pm and 7am (i.e. robbery by night), the offender will be sentenced to a jail term of 3 to 14 years, along with caning of at least 12 strokes.^

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore

Crime rates in Singapore are some of the lowest in the world, with petty crimes such as pickpocketing and street theft rarely occurring, and violent crime being extremely rare.[1]

I agree with your position @AlfredBasedman

Leftoid brainrot? How very childish and presumptuous of you.

You're talking about burglary, fine let's focus on that. It's a crime you apparently think is worthy of death. But how far can you take it and how much evidence do you need to act?

Say someone broke into my house while I wasn't in, can I track them down and slit their throat a week later or is it only OK if I catch them in the act?

What if I catch them in the act but don't quite manage to finish them off in the house, can I chase them 2 miles down the road and kerb stomp them to death?

Do they need to physically have broken in or can I off them just for walking up to my door?

Do they physically have to have taken something or is their meer presence in my home a green light to kill? I ask this one because years ago I had a very drunk women walk into my house through the back door (she was looking for a house party further down the street and was very apologetic about). Would it have been OK for me to have killed her or would I need to have double checked her robber status first?

Do I have to "execute" them quickly or is it fair game to torture them for a bit first?

Does this "right" to execute only apply to the home or can I kill someone in the pub or on the street who tries to steal my bag or phone?

The courts always take a very dim view of people who try to take the law into their own hands, and rightly so.

His reaction was disproportionate, and dangerous.

He shouldn't have rammed the criminals' bike when chasing them. That was the biggest problem in all this.

I think Adam White lost control of himself and is now paying for it. His sentence would be longer if one of the men he chased had died. I am not excusing what they did and I agree that they should have had stiffer sentences themselves, but White was in the wrong. He was not defending himself, as the criminals were fleeing.

Yes if those two criminals were locked up ay the time they wouldn't be able to burgal anyone, that is true.

Equally, they might have been released from a long sentence for their previous crimes and, with no other options open to them, been forced back into a life of crime. Only this time they're not going to take chances and instead of fleeing when caught decided it is better to kill the witnesses than face another 10 year stretch again.

Draconian punishments only deter criminals who have other options, as long as there is inequality, poverty and deprivation there will be crimes of that nature.

I have a friend who works in addiction recovery. Some of the stories I've heard are harrowing. A repeat offender who stole to fund a drug habit got referred to them and eventually broke down to reveal that from the age of around 13 his dad had been raping him and pimping him out to his friends. He ran away at 15, became homeless and turned to drugs and theft.

No length of prison term would have deterred him because he had no other option and locking people like that up for 12 years at a time isn't going to solve anything.

There are of course some people out there who are just arseholes but in a lot of instances crimes of theft are committed out of desperation and necessity. If you want to reduce crimes of those nature you need to work on the causes.

I also always find it funny that many people are happy to see people killed, injured, or locked away for years for stealling a TV or some tools, yet don't seem to call for the same punishment when a someone steals from hmrc or their employers.

@Thebestwaytoscareatory I know your post wasn't directed to me but I thought I'd weigh in with my opinions, HTH:

Say someone broke into my house while I wasn't in, can I track them down and slit their throat a week later or is it only OK if I catch them in the act?
I'd say only in the act or immediate aftermath. Rush of blood to the head, fight or flight response sort of thing, probably not pre-meditated. While they're committing a crime or fleeing from the scene is fine.

What if I catch them in the act but don't quite manage to finish them off in the house, can I chase them 2 miles down the road and kerb stomp them to death?
Yes that would be fine, it's still one incident.

Do they need to physically have broken in or can I off them just for walking up to my door?
It depends on their intent. I think if you could prove they were up to no good - for example they'd been casing your joint the week before or they were appropriately "tooled up" for a break in, you could act. But if you made a mistake and it was actually the postman, you'd be in trouble.

Do they physically have to have taken something or is their meer presence in my home a green light to kill? I ask this one because years ago I had a very drunk women walk into my house through the back door (she was looking for a house party further down the street and was very apologetic about). Would it have been OK for me to have killed her or would I need to have double checked her robber status first?
Green light to kill. But it's your responsibility to determine whether the person had a legal right to be there before you act, so if it turns out you've killed a plain clothes police officer, you're legally fucked.

Do I have to "execute" them quickly or is it fair game to torture them for a bit first?
Your call. Torture is fair game but would be riskier for you, there's a chance they might fight back.

Does this "right" to execute only apply to the home or can I kill someone in the pub or on the street who tries to steal my bag or phone?
Applies anywhere someone is physically committing an offence against you.

Love it @Dotjones

with no other options open to them, been forced back into a life of crime. Only this time they're not going to take chances and instead of fleeing when caught decided it is better to kill the witnesses than face another 10 year stretch again.

as long as there's this rhetoric 'oh poor them, no other options' it's not THEIR fault they're career criminals... there will be situations like this. Why is it meant to be acceptable that some sections of the public should be absolved, unless you mean they should never be released from prison?

Based. My views exactly.

@OldTinHat

I believe a dangerous driving conviction would have been appropriate, but GBH and a prison term? That's so wrong imo

He didn’t get charged with GBH only arrested for it. He was charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving which was more appropriate.

I have no idea why he decided to plea not guilty though - his £50k bill clearly didn’t = good legal advice. His harsh sentence would have reflected his refusal to plead guilty

The judge doesn’t have a lot of flexibility when it comes to sentencing as far as im aware, they just follow the Sentencing Council guidelines.

I feel some sympathy about the sentence as seemingly he was of previous good character and had had a total moment of madness - but ultimately he did what he was charged with, so had to be penalised for that

Thank you for answering, I have a few follow up Qs for you too if you don't mind.

You say at the start you would find it acceptable to kill someone caught in the act or in the immediate aftermath, but then go on to say it would be OK to chase them for a time and kill them once caught, which is neither in the act or immediate aftermath. What is the actual cut off point for you where it goes from reaction to action?

Your also placing a lot of responsibility on the home defender to "prove" their actions where justified which is contradictory to the "right to kill someone in your property" stance.

Lets say I come out the kitchen to find a man standing in my living room, it's either OK for me to react and stab him or it's not. The second you start adding "buts or ifs" the "right" becomes pointless and also moves things away from reaction to premeditated again. So you have to be happy that for every 10 burglars who are killed 1 or 2 innocent people just going about their jobs will also be killed.

You also claim torture is fair game but surely that goes beyond any sort of "just" punishment and is way into the realms of premeditation? I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but do you genuinely think it would be proportional for me to skin someone alive because they tried to steal my TV??

Finally, do you really think killing someone anywhere is justified as long as their is an offence taking place?

What about if I was in the pub and went to get a drink, leaving my phone on the table. I look over and see you/your partner/you adult child lift it. Their intention is to hand it in behind the bar but to me it looks like they are stealing my phone.

Are you genuinely OK with me killing them over that? They'll be dead at the end of it so no way to prove they weren't trying to steal my phone so you'll be down one loved one and I'll not get any sort of punishment for that.

I'm fairly open to all solutions tbh.

I'd personally prefer we focus on addressing the underlying causes of crime like poverty and inequality and on rehabilitating offenders so that they can leave that sort of life behind and contribute to society.

But I'd also not be that bothered if we went full steam ahead the other way, as long as it was done across the board and not so that it disproportionately focused on one section of society.

By all means lock burglars up for life if that'll make you feel better as long as you apply the same punishment to those that to those who help themselves to a glass from the pub or stick through two items through as one at the self check out.

I'd also want to see people caught using their phone or eating while driving being sent down for a spell and being banned from driving for life, no exceptions mind.

Or those who fiddle their expenses/tax returns having all their assets frozen and banned from ever receiving state help including pensions.

Amazingly, when extreme deterents start impacting the average person they suddenly loose their zeal for punishment.

But people are starting to do things themselves as the police don't show up and the sentences are light to these previous offenders
We stopped a known offended beating up an innocent bystander he was charges with GBH but no prison sentence despite a long history or crimes
The system is broke and it will only get worse

@Lockheart and many many don't because you read about the sentences and know about them when you live in certain areas
He probably chased them on adrenaline and instinct not really thinking , maybe trying to stop them as the police wouldn't come out there and then like they used to.
We don't have to know the law system inside out to see whats around us and that its broken
I can point out the repeat offenders around here, the giy who attempted to break into mine got no prison sentence despite being successful in breaking into others and having a rap sheet as long as my street.
My kids were petrified of being in their own home for months and yet he is out doing this again and again .
So people have lost faith in the system and I doubt Mr white was thinking straight at the time at all

@Thebestwaytoscareatory but crimes have to be comparable and someone stealing a loaf to feed their family once is not the same as the repeat offenders who do it for drugs etc and have had numerous interventions to help them.
Some just don't want to change no matter what do gooders think who never ever spoken to anyone like this.
So mr white was charged with gBH and sentenced but the criminals no sentence , thats where it isn't fair.
And fraud often carries a big sentence actually often more so than burglary , it also has a big impact on jobs etc

Hopefully the British police will start using the new killer robots that they are using in America.

I was fuming after watching this! What he did was wrong but what they did was worse. How he got a prison sentence and they got suspended sentences I’ll never know! They were low life scum bags ( putting it mildly) and deserve to be locked away! Scum like this just continue offending because there’s no punishment! Their poor kids! The way they talk about being proud of what they do!

It made my blood boil!

It's not apology when that is the actual fact.

I always enjoy threads about criminals and everyone here having masaive balls on about this and that while we are on a website where people don't even answer the door🙄