to disagree with clearing prisons to make room for "rioters"

[onceandneveragain]

to be clear, I do not agree with the riots in any way. I think all who participated were pathetic and deserve punishment. But I really do not think the combination of extremely harsh and inconsistent sentencing (compared to the same crimes outside of 'large scale public disorder') with letting other convicted criminals out early to make room for them in prison is a good idea.

It's very well known that currently most shoplifting is unlikely to even get police attending, let alone any prospect of criminal conviction, even if it is repeated and large scale. So someone regularly stealing hundreds of pounds of alcohol from tescos won't ever even get arrested, but someone stealing a few sausage rolls from greggs will get a few years custodial sentence. That's already ridiculous. But then to make room for them in prison by letting other convicted prisoners out on license when they've only served 40% of their sentence - when the chief inspector of probation has already warned that "Inevitably things will go wrong" www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce81wk4ej3ro (because they don't have enough probation officers to oversee them all!) - how is that safe or logical?

I put "rioters" in quotation marks because I would be fine with 'making an example' of those who actively engaged in rioting - who smashed shop windows and threw bricks at police officers. But look at some of these examples - www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5y8x2nnwx7t

The 15 y/o stealing a bath bomb and a corned beef pasty without any prior criminal record is unlikely to be a huge threat to society. The councillor's wife posting racial incitement is clearly a hugely unpleasant individual, but as far as I can tell, neither she nor the guy who got more than three years just for re-posting her statement actually went out and did anything. If everyone who was a racist twat online got sent to prison they'd be twenty to a cell.

They should absolutely be punished, but if it's a choice between them being in prison, or someone convicted of assault/death by dangerous driving (an example of which was also in the news today for receiving what the family thought was a far too lenient sentence)/or far more serious theft I know which I think is more of a risk to society. Given the effort, time, and cost in convicting criminals, it's ridiculous to then let them out even earlier than they normally would under early release schemes, just to 'make an example' of people who in any other circumstances wouldn't have even seen a magistrate, let alone received a jail sentence.

Wouldn't hitting them with significant fines or properly monitored and enforced community service as a first resort (and then possibly automatic imprisonment if they fail to pay/turn up) be better, both for the overall safety of the population, the country's finances (actually getting money into the public coffers instead of the huge cost to keep someone in prison), if community service actually doing something to help the places that suffered as a result of their actions and filling in the gaps for councils who apparently can't afford to trim hedges/pick up rubbish etc., be more rehabilitative and fairer/more consistent?

It might even have been before that. Alex Chalke the prisons minister was suggesting the same thing but the Tories couldn’t/wouldn’t talk about it because it would make them look bad during the election campaign.

The 15 year old is over the age of criminal responsibility and chose to loot during a riot.

Everyone who spread lies online and encouraged others to attack ethnic minorities or attack religious buildings, deserves everything they get. Inciting violence is just as bad as doing it. Throw away the key.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is

If it's that early release schemes were in place anyway, and would have happened even if the riots hadn't taken place, then the decision to send more people to jail completely contradicts the whole point of early release which was to reduce dangerous overcrowding.

So the govt spends time and effort in a plan to solve a serious problem but then foils their own attempts by sending even more people to jail?

Would community service be a more suitable punishment?

Doubt the threat of community service would have stopped the riots.

@MyOtherCarisAVauxhallZafira

Exactly!

All of those are long term solutions though. You can’t build a new prison or fix the reoffending rate overnight. That’s the sort of thing that should have been done years ago when it was evident a crisis was coming.
You can’t do those things at the point when you reach crisis point. it’s too late.
This wouldn’t be happening if there was any other immediate option.

Incitement has always been a serious crime in the UK. The Tory Councillor's wife pleaded guilty to it. In this case it was clear that her actions had contributed significantly to the ensuing violence. Arguably a person in her position should very well know better - this was possibly considered an aggravating factor too. She got a fair sentence in line with the guidance.

Early release schemes are nothing to do with the riots op.... you know that yes?

No, the community needs them removed from it while it tries to heal the damage that's been done to it and to peoples trust in each other.

the cost per prisoner for a YOI (which is where a 15 y.o would go) is £178,970
Even if that is the best punishment for someone who stole a few bathbombs, is this the best use of our limited finances as a society?

In terms of a 'deterrent' that could pay the wages of about 8 new police officers for a year.

I don't get the deterrent argument because 99% of hate speech on twitter will still go unpunished - so what's the learning? be a racist twat normally and that's fine just don't do it when there's a riot on?

you can shoplift 365 days a year and we won't even bother to arrest you, just make sure you stay at home in the once a decade event there's a riot?

Pretty sure that 15year old didn’t just loot Greggs. He was was hurling missiles at police officers too. I’m guessing it was the violent disorder rather than the looting that was responsible for most of his sentence.

a) um....she hasn't been sentenced yet so how can you say it was fair?
b) how was "it clear that her actions had contributed significantly to the ensuing violence?"

literally none of the articles on it have mentioned anyone specifically saying they only went out because of her tweet, which was deleted after 2 hours. The average thug who goes out attacking hostels isn't going to be following their local councillor's wife on twitter and taking life advice from her. It's odd to say that her comment is what caused it, as if the poor little racist thugs don't have a mind of their own.

Her comment was reprehensible but so are millions of racist comments posted online daily. If anything we should be cracking down on all of them, consistently, rather than giving the message that it's completely ok in 99% of circumstances.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyxl9nv37lo.amp

Her own husband has said 'he hopes she can learn from it'

Can you link to the 15 year olds case please? The only one I can find is a boy from Sunderland who was charged with taking part in a riot not looting. The person taking bath bombs was charged with other violent crimes, not theft.

Irrespective of how much it costs, these people were taking part in a far right riot and were warned that there would be serious consequences. There was a lot of violence, racist attacks and people were terrified.

well, I don't know that, because it's untrue.

I know they weren't implemented solely because of the riots, but how can you say they have nothing to do with them?
It's a fact that those being released will have their spaces filled by those given custodial sentences linked to the rioting

The most direct link is that if they weren't released early the rioters literally could not be given custodial sentences because there would be nowhere for them to go.
Even the less direct link is that the govt's planned solution to overcrowding now will not be able to be implemented due to the decision to impose severe sentences on rioters.

Half the time they're signed off on hours and they've done bugger all so not a deterrent.

Depends on the crime.

18 months for chanting anti religious slogans was outrageous and chilling IMO

Oh come on op....how many rioters are going to be given custodial sentences??

What figure are we looking at?

Well the riots are no longer going on.

There needs to be more prisons in this country, they need to be harsher, and prison sentences should be longer, much longer. 25 years isn't a "life sentence" in 2024, and many serving life sentences don't do anywhere close to 25 years behind bars.

Aye because it wasn't slap on the wrist with community payback orders... you've missed the point I was making.
Community payback orders are a waste of time in a lot of cases.

The 15yr old pasty thieving hooligan encouraged someone to smash the window of Greggs so he could steal that pasty, and was caught on CCTV throwing missiles at officers on multiple occasions – firstly on Ferensway in front of a hotel and then later on Spring Bank.
In between the missile-throwing, he moved to Jameson Street, where he encouraged someone else to smash the window of a Greggs store. He then went in and stole food before heading down to Lush to steal bath products.

Bit more than he nicked a pasty and some bath bombs.

Anyone smashing a window to steal a pasty from Greggs is an idiot and deserves all they get.

I did notice that no bookshops got broken into and looted during these riots. Yet people were looting from poundland. It just shows the mentality of these people.