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?

I am really disturbed to see that a young autistic lad, with learning difficulties, has been sent to prison. Yes, he should be punished for his part it rioting and the destruction he was responsible for, but who is it actually serving to send such a vulnerable person, as he undoubtedly is, to prison. Surely some other form of punishment could have been decided for him.

Shitty stains on the arse of humanity they may be - but they aren't posing a very real threat to the authority of government like hundreds of people out to burn down buildings, lynch Muslims and loot property in the confidence that the Police aren't able to do anything if enough band together and that even if the Army were sent in, they're not going to be shot; otherwise known as anarchy.

These cases have been prioritised, to the disadvantage of others that have been waiting a very long time to come to trial.
How can that be right ?

It needs to start somewhere somehow?

I do wonder how the Tories would have handled the situation though - very curious

So…did you want more riots?

Some people are going to Crown court in September so not all of them are so fast

Not uncomfortable at all. These sentences reflect the country we should be, not the country these bigoted idiots want us to be.

@Sirzy @LilacQuoter

They are children. No one is saying there shouldn’t be consequences but being charged and taken to court within days within no time for any thought, care or time to look at their circumstances and how those children came to be involved or their background is absolutely inhuman and would be rightly condemned in any other circumstances. No one is condoning the riots but that doesn’t excuse 20 years plus years of research and understanding into the impact on young people being swallowed up by the criminal justice system being thrown away to the virtue signally left. The same people who were applauding the appointment of James Timpson are now delighted that a 13 year girl has been arrested and convicted within days

I’m so unbelievably angry

To be clear - you would prefer them to have been given a lower priority, which would mean not a one of them would have been sentenced by now? What do you think the effect of that would have been?

I think it's been absolutely fantastic and Starmer's gone right up in my estimation.

This is a whole load of whatbaoutery. Not surprising coming from mumsnet though.

Whatever sentencing they get is not enough. Instead of wringing hands about how these poor lovely criminals are suffering "too much" sentence for their criminals act, govt should step up harsher sentencing for every other criminal. Young or old.

We can’t have any trials if court workers, witnesses and lawyers can’t get to the courts because there’s rioting and people are afraid to be out in city centres or use public transport. Public order has to come first.

Those children broke the law.

Plenty of children have been charged with offences - some for horrific murders.

It send a great message to kids that "I'm a kid" isn't a defence in law. And it's a great chance to rehabilitate these kids before murder becomes the first crime we hear about thy they've committed.

This is the bit that makes me feel uncomfortable too. Why the difference?

Because if they hadn’t taken that approach you’d be looking at a repeat of 2011 and worse. I feel a bit weird explaining that though. It’s starting to seem like if people don’t understand, I don’t know how to get them to understand.

I’ve just watched the news where a man convicted of sexually assaulting a woman on a train got a twenty month sentence- compare this with the fifteen month sentence for the social media post. I’m not saying she should have got less but he should definitely have got more- tougher sentences need to be seen to be applied fairly and proportionately across the board

The sentences are not consistent though which I think angers some people. This 13 year old girl has essentially been charged for kicking and punching the hotel door. However, I know of a family who had their door kicked and punched by a 15 year old on 3 occasions, which caused serious psychiatric harm to a member of their household. Yet the police say "we don't want to criminalise youngsters".

Consistency is needed as it will breed resentment.

This!

A prison sentence for a Facebook post is ludicrous

The first case probably had previous. There were people rioting wearing electronic tags.
The second case is nothing like misogyny posted online. People were openly inciting murder and telling people to go and set fire to hostels and hotels with people in them. Try posting publicly lots of posts telling people to go to a named address and burn the house down with people inside, and them see how the police respond.

Why shouldn’t they be charged? They’re not going to get life imprisonment, just a supervisory order. What would you expect?

‘being charged and taken to court within days within no time for any thought, care or time to look at their circumstances and how those children came to be involved or their background is absolutely inhuman and would be rightly condemned in any other circumstances. ‘

She chose to plead guilty, which will get her some leniency, and she’s now on bail awaiting sentencing. Now they’ll get reports about her background etc for mitigation.

My daughter is an autistic teen with learning difficulties

She would never have participated

I know it is not right to compare but being autistic and having LDs don’t stop you from knowing right from wrong

Heck, I was a TA working with autistic children with LD in Y1 and I can absolutely say that some of them would never do that even as 5 years old

Whereas others who were NT and quite bright absolutely would - in fact some of them are in their late teens now, in gangs, selling drugs, breaking in cars and god knows what else

I feel uncomfortable about it. Not because I particularly care about the people who, by their criminal actions, have laid themselves open to harsh sentencing, but for two reasons:

-- The rule of law requires equal treatment under the law, and respect for it is potentially undermined if treatment isn't clearly in line with other sentencing.

-- More importantly, the speed of sentencing rams home just how utterly broken our criminal courts system is. It makes clear just how much more of a deterrent a rapid consequence is. A long-delayed sentence that is eventually wrung out of a terminally blocked and slothful system seems much less intuitively linked to an individual's behaviour, much more like a random bureaucratic imposition. Not to mention the appalling stress on victims, witnesses and the accused when prosecution and sentencing are massively delayed.

While I do want to see the rioters locked up, I hear what you are saying. It feels as if it’s being done to “make a point”; Mr New Broom asserting his authority, like a newly appointed headmaster changing the uniform to a far stricter regime, saying “things are going to be different now I’m in charge”, in other words, “this is going to be different from soft touch Tory Britain”. Is this a good thing? It remains to be seen. Soon the prisons will be full again, the riots will be old news, yet women and girls will still be assaulted by men. Will soft touch sentencing return for that?

Starmer is still in the honeymoon period, and he knows that everyone is watching how he handles this. It is hard to believe it’s mere coincidence that this came moments after “we have to release criminals early to make space in the prisons”. Also, some people are concerned that this is setting a precedent of “the government can fast track you to prison if you say something they don’t like”.

I agree with you OP, for the same reasons than @ReadWithScepticism