Anyone feeling slightly uncomfortable with the scale of the sentencing after the riots?

[TiredWife]

Firstly, in no way do I support the disgusting, racist behaviour we've seen over the last couple of weeks, and I fully believe the major perpetrators need to be found and punished.

Given his background Starmer has obviously been able to pull lots of strings to process a huge volume of offenders through the courts, and there is clearly a directive to name and shame in the media to send the clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. All good, and in the past I would have been firmly in support of this.

However there's something about the scale and speed of the court response which is making me uncomfortable. It feels as if they are highlighting specific cases to 'send a message' and it doesn't seem consistent with how the police and courts have handled previous similar cases.

So for instance an 18 year old has just been sentenced to 26 weeks in a young offender institution for 'possession of a bladed article in a public place'. I live near a London suburb and I reckon about a third of men out on the streets on a Saturday night would fall foul of this! But the police seem reluctant to stop them, let alone charge them?

Similarly the 53 year old woman, first offender, jailed for 15 months over Facebook hate post. Again, I don't condone what she did, but when you look at all the hate that women get online, or the death threats sent to JKR or MPs, there are few instances of people being jailed in the same way?

Justice needs to be applied fairly and consistently, across all groups, but this feels like a response at a level which cannot be maintained/applied across the board? Is that fair?

Don't feel at all uncomfortable. I think the rent a mob are getting what they deserved. You can't have people acting like this. People who have been violent to the police, smashing stuff up, pulling Asians out of cars, being violent....yes they deserve 2-3 years in prison.

And sentences need to send a message. That's part of the whole justice process. It's not just punishment, it's a deterrent to others - always has been.

thesecretbarrister.com/2024/08/14/two-tier-justice-cutting-through-the-online-myths/

Someone posted this on another thread.

It's worth a read as reiterates a lot of what people are saying but that's not being heard (or believed!)

Similarly the 53 year old woman, first offender, jailed for 15 months over Facebook hate post. Again, I don't condone what she did, but when you look at all the hate that women get online, or the death threats sent to JKR or MPs, there are few instances of people being jailed in the same way?

She called for a Mosque to be blown up, with the people inside, she used her own FB account, so it was v easy to trace her, chances are, if she said exactly the same thing, 6 months ago, it would have gone un noticed but she posted this at a time when MPs were being advised to work from home as it was too dangerous to go to their offices, the authorities had to crack down v hard or these riots would have continued and got even worse.

Much of the abuse MPs etc get, is done where its very difficult to trace who has sent them but the man who abused Jess Phillips MP got 28 months, not 15.

No they weren't.

See the post by @AngelusBell at 00.31 last night.

But that Labour councillor is now wasting the justice systems time. He’s not pleaded guilty, meaning it’ll go to crown court.

He said what he said and was filmed saying it. Why didn’t he just go guilty and accept his punishment?

I take it his career is very much over too?

We leave the choice of how to plead (guilty or not guilty) to the defendant, not the onlooker.

Whether or not they've wasted court time will be reflected in the sentencing.

Only when it applies to any crime that might damage the state.

Deterrent sentences aren't used when sentencing crimes against the person e.g traffic offences or burglary.

Whilst i support the sentences handed out to these people, the sad fact is that many people who do far worse, will end up with a shorter or non custodial sentence.

On early release, why are so many non violent offenders in prison? Yes there will be cases when prison is the only option but the UK jails far more people than almost any other european country, yet still has high crime rates.

Yes. In the same way that buying off Facebook marketplace creates a market for burglary, selling fast cars creates a market for dangerous driving, selling alcohol creates a market for domestic violence…

And that’s happening where in the UK?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Now they should do this for the Post Office stuff.

It was a good explanation. Here is the bit that does frustrate people:

Now, as I find myself repeating endlessly, the fact that Guidelines and legal principles have been followed does not mean that the sentences are just or fair. It just means that the law has been followed. There may well be arguments that, in the cases of some of those convicted, sentences of immediate imprisonment appear oppressive.

our sentencing system is incoherent and inconsistent. Almost everybody will find aspects of our sentencing regime that offend them, or that don’t make sense. Non-violent migrants working in the UK using false documents almost always go to prison. That’s the stance of the Court of Appeal. Whereas violent domestic abusers frequently do not. Somebody who sells Class A drugs on the street can expect a higher starting point for sentence than a person who commits a sexual assault on public transport. I personally think that is madness.

That is the bit that frustrates me. And we’re seeing it again here. Of course I get the need to deter more violence but women get beaten, abused or receive death threats on SM daily and nothing happens.

"That is the bit that frustrates me. And we’re seeing it again here. Of course I get the need to deter more violence but women get beaten, abused or receive death threats on SM daily and nothing happens."

Agreed - but if you dont mind me saying you dont need the 'but' in your comment.
We should act to deter wide spread violence and rioting.
We should also act to pressure governments to look again at sentencing guidelines for sexual abuse/rape/online threats etc.

Its not either or.
One doesnt come at the cost of the other.
But it also requires a more widespread review of the state of the system as a whole - from police numbers, to appropriate court staffing and specialist officers/barristers, to prison places etc.

Most of all we need everyone to be interested and invested in the judicial system. It is a central plank to living in a well run society.

One doesnt come at the cost of the other.

Agreed. The ‘but’ shouldn’t need to be there. Also agreed that a well run and apolitical judicial system is absolutely integral to healthy society.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but of course there was a political element to freeing up spaces to prosecute rioters as quickly as possible. The riots had to be stopped. I will wait and hope that Starmer will also resource our courts to help ensure it becomes a healthier system going forward.

Absolutely. Couldn't have put it better myself.

And I think the reason we haven't had improvements is because everyone has sat back and watched these being decimated for over a decade.

And rather than campaign for better they've allowed the,selves to be dragged into the culture wars of "either/or" and fighting over who deserves better and who's to blame (pick a minority group!).

I hadn't realised until Andrew pierce (from DM and very openly a Tory supporter) said that his party were wrong for closing 7/14 jails (half 😳).

The fact is EVERYONE deserves better than we had and what we have now.

Better education
Better housing.
Better policing
Better justice system
Better prison services.
Better healthcare and dentistry

Better public services will make EVERYONE feel more included and worthwhile. Make everyone feel the country works for them.

Rather than feeling certain groups get a better chunk of the limited services than they do.

Of course I get the need to deter more violence but women get beaten, abused or receive death threats on SM daily and nothing happens.

Yes, this is the problem exactly. Because this street violence is out in public, and has happened in a brief spasm that captures everyone's attention, it is punished swiftly and harshly. But endemic violence against women and girls, on a far huger scale than this street violence, is a slow-burn constant issue that everyone half-ignores because it has been allowed to become accepted as a permanent state of affairs. So we shrug and let criminal cases languish for months or years, and punish convicted criminals more mildly.

Growing VAWG is an emergency. Why not divert all court resources and jail spaces to crack down on it with the same seriousness as we are (rightly) cracking down on racist rioters?

Resources are key. Wholescale reform would be impossible to implement over a 5 year term.

I think - like so many key areas - it needs cross party agreements to produce long term plans that parties commit to implementing. Plans that directly involve and are influenced by those working within the system and understand its faults - rather than politically motivated changes. We need to move beyond 'tough on crime' soundbites and headlines. I doubt I am being realistic in suggesting that though! I will be watching to see how Labour use their time - they have 5 years.

Couldn't agree more - again 😂

I do the route of the "problem" is the ever changing "solutions".

Port of that has been evidenced through scrapping surestart. That has been evidenced as being a positive solution.

Scrapping it has created problems.

Which we now need another solution for.

The ever decreasing circle!

Nope.

The sentencing guidelines will have been in place for a long time - I doubt Starmer, even given his background and position as PM can have any direct bearing on the judgements handed down. We can only guess that he's asked the police and the courts to try and process those people arrested ASAP as an important step in trying to stop civil disorder from spreading: that seems pretty reasonable to me. I think the sentencing had been quick and had proved effective in dampening down these idiots.

@PickAChew Ive definitely slagged off Trump on here but I don’t think I’ve ever wished that!

And sentences need to send a message. That's part of the whole justice process. It's not just punishment, it's a deterrent to others - always has been.

Does the lack of punishment account for the increase in sexual crimes against women eg on public transport?

Not examined the release list in any detail but at least one was someone who bought two machetes and gave one to his fellow gang member. Days later he and his friends attacked and killed a 14 year old boy, and stabbed a 17 year old boy non-fatally. He then wrote a rap song celebrating the murder: "Two got splashed in a day, we should have sent both of them to hell." He was "smiling at the camera and repeatedly making a stabbing gesture." He also mocked seeing the victim's mother crying on tv and boasted that he'd "been "nicked for M" but would not be going to jail". He was only given a couple of years as it was not him who delivered the fatal blow; it was the friend he'd given the other machete to. He is now going to be released early and will serve less than a year for his crime. I suppose that technically he was not a violent criminal as he didn't do the stabbing himself, but I can understand why people might be disturbed by the idea of releasing someone like this after eleven and a bit months so they have room to jail people for several years because they posted unpleasant comments on social media or kicked police cars.

(Obviously this is a gross simplification and the releases were decided before the riots started, but I do believe this is the basic narrative that will be slurped up by the aggrieved, and I strongly suspect it's going to cause enormous anger and resentment moving forward.)

As you say in that instance the releases were arranged prior to the riots and therefore he will not be vacating his prison space specifically for those dishing out online incitement.

"The average length of a prison sentence has increased since 1996, rising by more than a third in the decade between 2009 to 2019 alone, with the average sentence length increasing from 13.8 months to 18.9 months."

We've lengthened sentences*
We have not built enough prisons to accomodate this change - thereby storing up problems for the whole system. A failure to anticipate the longer term impact.

https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/new-survey-reveals-longer-prison-sentences-have-failed-to-improve-public-confidence/

• fully appreciate that its probably a lot more complicated than that. It may be sentencing for the most serious cases has lengthened but custody for summary offences etc has become less likely etc. Somebody somewhere must have done a deep dive on this stuff.

I think they are being made examples. But so they should be in the public interest to stop the violence from escalating..but I don't forone minute think they will serve the full sentence as no one ever seems to.