Been burgled and annoyed at short sentence given to offender?

[Huguenot]

I had my last 'problem' before I was 18 - I shoplifted low value items initially but escalated to high value electronics, I never actually wanted them, but the buzz was great. I always gave them away.

I got caught for ticket fraud around the same time, but hell, I was skint and a long way from home and they were going to move the train around anyhow. I did non-domestic burglary once overseas, but the guys had my passport and I needed it back and I figured a little bit of recompense for the stress they'd put me through was deserved.

Mainly people used commonsense, and without agreeing with me they put me straight.

The only time I spent in the cells was for arson, but to this day I don't know who it was, and I'd have disapproved.

Did I deserve time for those? Yes probably - but there'd be a few less people employed in the world were it not for the fact that nobody destroyed my life before I was even 18.

Since then I've paid more tax than most people - for using my wits more constructively.

If I'd have suffered unintelligent treatment you'd just have had one more psychotic criminal mastermind after you ;-)

The last time I was a victim it was for $12,500. Makes my Tandy stereo mixing desk pale into insignificance. It was a white collar crime, and I can't get it back through legal means. But I gave them a smile, ruffled their hair, and reminded them to pay their dues. I'll get it back. ;-)

[LadyDeliah]

OMG Huggie's got form!

I'm truly shocked, but secretly impressed!

[northlondoner]

EMC aren't you embrassed to come on here and admit you make the kind of ass-backwards simple minded agenda driven reductive bullshit TV that sets out to sensationalise, trivialise and rabble rouse? Geez.

[DJKillaQueen]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OMG Huggie's got form!

>

> I'm truly shocked, but secretly impressed!

Kind of my thoughts too :))

[KidKruger]

DJKillaQueen:

When you were caught for an offence KK.....were you given any other kind of intervention or mentoring? Was there any effort to make you think about what you had done and why?

When I was caught it was whilst raiding a gemstone shop on the South coast, when the manager saw us we made a dash but as I delayed our departure to grab a few more onyx eggs my accomplice held the door ajar and shouted "Quickly, KidKruger !!". (my real name substituted here obviosuly)

My name is unusual and within a few hours people who knew me were being contacted by police. By the time I returned from a town 10 miles away where we'd since been having another spree, the police were waiting in my area.

Obviously I wished I'd been named Bill or George, and cussed my accomplice bigstyle.

I was cautioned. The police finger printed me. A few hours in a cell to try scare me.

My Dad turned up and did me over pretty good, part in the cell and the rest in the car park on the way out.

Police turned the other way.

I denied any other crimes, so they only had the gem shop job on us. They hadn't even touched the tip of it.

A few months later I was in a store and saw some stuff I wanted, I was dead against it in principle but I just had to demonstrate to myself that I still had the technique. I stole some stuff it was easy. That was last time I stole anything. After that I've never even taken a toilet roll or pen from a place of work, nothing.

When I was cautioned there was no effort from authorities to make me think what I'd done and why. But I knew what I had done, stolen stuff (more than they could know). And I knew why, for the thrill and for the cash, as by then I was stealing to order.

I look back and think bad mainly about the burglary stuff, never sentimental stuff, only cash. Never trashed a dwelling, that would have been totally out of order in my paradoxical set of 'principles'.

[Parkdrive]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive, he's not a one off. I agree with him

> on this issue.

>

> Sentencing should be based on the facts of the

> crime committed. not the emotional response of the

> victim.

>

> Some victims are over-sensitive while others are

> much tougher and resilient. Why should the tough

> victims not expect the same sentencing in crimes

> committed against them as those who are

> over-sensitive?

>

> It stands to reason that the sensitivity of the

> victims to crimes committed against them will vary

> drastically for any number of reasons, but how can

> an offender be held to account for anything other

> than the actual act committed, based on the facts

> available?

>

> In any case, victims can submit statements of the

> effect of the crime upon them and are able to give

> evidence to that effect, so their views are taken

> into account by the Judge in sentencing offenders.

So my friend is to blame for being over sensitive, and the criminal isn't to blame for her condition? The criminal had a choice, to enter her home or not. He made the choice to break the law, she had no choice in the matter and is left to live with someone elses irresponsible and criminal actions. Isn't our legal system wonderful?

[Huguenot]

I can understand your desire to find a hate figure to blame, but mental illness is mental illness. There doesn't need to be anybody to blame.

I don't think you can be to blame for triggering it unless there was a reasonable expectation that your behaviour would trigger it.

I don't think a lifetime's mental health problems is a normal outcome of what sounds like a relatively smmall incident as you have described it, so no, the scrote should not be punished for anything other than the crime which he committed.

[KidKruger]

Parkdrive I agree, as I mentioned in my first post, there's a gap in the law and what it covers.

Trauma, ill-efects etc. are not covered very well. If your crime has a by-product of causing this you're not in the frame for it, the victim just gets a hard luck deal.

It's a bit like murder vs attempted murder, if you shoot a guy in the head and miraculously the guy survives you get attempted murder whereas I believe if the perpetrator's actions would have killed, if successful, the it should be murder.

[Huguenot]

Well that's an interesting example KK. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is also life imprisonment, so it's a technicality that has no difference in execution.

British law depends heavily on something called 'mens rea' which means that you had to have the intent to commit a crime, or be aware that you actions were reasonably likely to result in a crime in order to be found criminally liable.

That's why accidentally knocking over a cyclist is not 'murder', and a pretty girl cannot be found guilty of murder for distracting the driver's attention.

The mental health problems this person has suffered are exceptional, so the burglar could not have any reasonable expectation that they were going to result from his crime, and hence he can't be found responsible for it.

[KidKruger]

I didn't know that, it'd be interesting to see how in specific examples (like I posed above) the sentencing actually went.

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well that's an interesting example KK. The maximum

> penalty for attempted murder is also life

> imprisonment, so it's a technicality that has no

> difference in execution.

>

> British law depends heavily on something called

> 'mens rea' which means that you had to have the

> intent to commit a crime, or be aware that you

> actions were reasonably likely to result in a

> crime in order to be found criminally liable.

>

> That's why accidentally knocking over a cyclist is

> not 'murder', and a pretty girl cannot be found

> guilty of murder for distracting the driver's

> attention.

>

> The mental health problems this person has

> suffered are exceptional, so the burglar could not

> have any reasonable expectation that they were

> going to result from his crime, and hence he can't

> be found responsible for it.

I'll go back to an early post in which I asked whatever happened to an individual taking responsibility for his/her actions, if the criminal hadn't broken in to her home, and he had a choice to break in or not, then my friend wouldn't be in the state she's in now. Am I to understand that you feel that the public at large would not act adversely to having thier homes broken into? I really do struggle with this business of the victim being overly sensitive and in some way to blame for the position they find themselves in. Criminals seem to have a raft of services/support groups/probation officers/legal advisers at their disposal, while the victim has sod all. Justice for all? Don't make me laugh.

[KidKruger]

Victims get a hard deal, I think that's understood.

And the focus does seem to be on getting the criminal 'back on track'.

There's less focus on the victim rebuilding/repairing their life, a couple of follow-up visit from the police on home security doesn't nail it for many victims.

[Parkdrive]

What really gets under my skin is the amount of effort thats put into criminal rehabilitation, and lets be honest many of them are beyond redemption, yet victims are left to fend for themselves. Its little wonder that some have so little faith in the legal/justice system that they take the law into their own hands. The case of farmer Tony Martin springs to mind.

[KidKruger]

Tony Martin did shoot someone in the back, the trick is to shoot them in the front.

He couldn't argue he was in danger when they had their back to him.

To be fair the law has changed meaning now from using 'reasonable force' to what force you think is necessary to protect your ome/family, and Tony Martin's case may have influenced that.

[Huguenot]

When I was the victim of an unprovoked group assault in a street that left me hospitalised and stitches across my face I got plenty of help.

Victim Support were the main source of help (with offers for medical help and so on), the two policemen on my case were regularly in contact and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was generous.

I don't accept that the victim has 'sod all', and it wasn't my experience.

The view that many are beyond redemption is to vague to be unfounded, but nevertheless at least two examples of 'redeemed' offenders are here on this thread.

[Parkdrive]

He did argue he was in danger and he won his appeal, I think I'm right, in arguing that he was acting in self defence and was in fear of his life. Mr. Martin had also been subjected to previous break ins which he duly reported to the authorities, who did very little about it.

[Chippy Minton]

Sentencing should be based on the facts of the crime committed, not the emotional response of the victim.

Doesn't sentencing consider the emotional response now thanks to "impact statements" ?

I did jury service last year, and after a guilty verdict was delivered and the victim impact statements read out (which were absolutely gutt-wrenching to hear), the prosecution barrister actively asked the judge to consider these when passing sentence.

[Huguenot]

So far as I know the judge is required to take into account the impact of a crime in sentencing, but not the victim's views on what the sentence should be. The personal statement is an opportunity for the victim to share this information from a personal perespective.

However the statement is also weighted by the fact that it doesn't take place under cross-examination, and hence it's diificult to interpret its validity.

I'm concerned that the victim statement may generate sentencing decisions based on the best creative writing.

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So far as I know the judge is required to take

> into account the impact of a crime in sentencing,

> but not the victim's views on what the sentence

> should be. The personal statement is an

> opportunity for the victim to share this

> information from a personal perespective.

>

> However the statement is also weighted by the fact

> that it doesn't take place under

> cross-examination, and hence it's diificult to

> interpret its validity.

>

> I'm concerned that the victim statement may

> generate sentencing decisions based on the best

> creative writing.

Yet another sysmpathetic view, and yet again screw the victim.

[Huguenot]

Not at all Parkdrive - the only thing I'm concerned about is justice. With that in mind it's about evidence and proportionality.

It is not sufficient to assume that the 'victim' is telling the truth unless the legal process has been pursued. The personal statement appears to sidestep this process and it makes me concerned.

I have no sympathy for the criminal - I merely want justice to be done.