View Full Version : Lock him up and throw away the key...
From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4535132.stm):
An 18-year-old man has been jailed for life after setting fire to two wheelie bins in north Devon.
Homeless Christopher Brown only caused a few pounds worth of damage when he set fire to the bins in Barnstaple.
But Judge Graham Cottle gave him an indeterminate sentence under new laws after hearing Brown threatened to commit more crimes if he was released.
A homeless man sets fire to a couple of bins, tells social workers that he plans to commit ‘very serious crimes’ if he is released and his defence lawyer tells the judge that the man wants to be sent to prison for as long as possible because he ‘cannot countenance living in the community at all’ ... and the judge gives him life. Is there not something wrong here?
Would the money that is now going to be spent locking this man up – potentially for life – not be better spent trying to help him? Do we really want to live in a society where the most troubled among us are simply locked away, out of sight and out of mind?
I didn't realise you could even be locked up for threatening to commit a crime. Surely its a psychiatric hospital he should be in...as you say receiving help...
They would be cheaper buying him a house to live in than us tax payer paying for him to live in prison Maybe the next person thats done for murder could ask if he or she could walk free thats what its coming to .
Well to be 18 and homeless cant be very pleasant experience and if he is homeless he must have had bad upbringing and maybey hes turned to crime to get some attention locking him up is not going to solve anything on a long term basis he needs help to get him back on his feet again.
well if I was homeless cold and hungry and I had the option of a roof 3 hot meals a day and a warm bed I suppose I would take the second option for sure.
BustedShoe2
16-Dec-05, 19:11
Maybe being locked up is what he was after. He was 18 and homeless, I can't imagine living on the streets anywhere at this time of year would be nice. He can't afford a home so he bags himself a shelter in the form of a prison. Not the best of ideas but it may have made sense to him. Don't think he thought about the length of time he'd be in for though which seem a bit strict if you ask me.
But then, surely there were homeless shelters in his area he could try instead?
A homeless man sets fire to a couple of bins, tells social workers that he plans to commit ‘very serious crimes’ if he is released and his defence lawyer tells the judge that the man wants to be sent to prison for as long as possible because he ‘cannot countenance living in the community at all’ ... and the judge gives him life. Is there not something wrong here?
Would the money that is now going to be spent locking this man up – potentially for life – not be better spent trying to help him? Do we really want to live in a society where the most troubled among us are simply locked away, out of sight and out of mind?
Do you think he won't get some help on the inside to help him adjust to life on the outside? It is something that I think you will approve of, it's called rehabilitation.:rolleyes:
Do you think he won't get some help on the inside to help him adjust to life on the outside? It is something that I think you will approve of, it's called rehabilitation. Oh, I’m certain that he’ll get some help whilst he’s in prison… but the important word there is ‘some’.
As you well know, I most certainly do approve of rehabilitation – but I imagine that the rehabilitation offered to prisoners is designed to rehabilitate… well, the prisoners. Whilst I am sure that there would be some shared techniques between that and helping somebody to deal with what would seem to be a deep-rooted fear of society I doubt that they outnumber the differences.
Add to that the company that this man will now be keeping (whether he likes it or not), the stigma of a lengthy prison-term that will weigh around his neck on his release and the impression that this ‘justice’ will have given the man of a society he already wants to escape and I really cannot see how this judge’s decision is anything but misguided.
Maybe this guy was fed up and just wanted to be locked up so's to get a regular meal and warm bed? And TV and pool etc.?
A homeless man sets fire to a couple of bins, tells social workers that he plans to commit ‘very serious crimes’ if he is released and his defence lawyer tells the judge that the man wants to be sent to prison for as long as possible because he ‘cannot countenance living in the community at all’ ... and the judge gives him life. Is there not something wrong here?
Would the money that is now going to be spent locking this man up – potentially for life – not be better spent trying to help him? Do we really want to live in a society where the most troubled among us are simply locked away, out of sight and out of mind?
Ah come on he is going to out in 18 months
Brown must serve at least 18 months and show he is no serious risk to people before he is eligible for parole
this is a direct quote from the BBC item, so where is all the hysteria "he is in for life" coming from, its the law with arsonists, The Judge was doing his job
Oh, I’m certain that he’ll get some help whilst he’s in prison… but the important word there is ‘some’.
As you well know, I most certainly do approve of rehabilitation – but I imagine that the rehabilitation offered to prisoners is designed to rehabilitate… well, the prisoners. Whilst I am sure that there would be some shared techniques between that and helping somebody to deal with what would seem to be a deep-rooted fear of society I doubt that they outnumber the differences.
Ah, but the slant that you were selling was that he was going to prison to be forgotten about, a bit of a difference don't you say?
Ah come on he is going to out in 18 months
Brown must serve at least 18 months and show he is no serious risk to people before he is eligible for parole
this is a direct quote from the BBC item, so where is all the hysteria "he is in for life" coming from, its the law with arsonists, The Judge was doing his job
hmm thought this was a life sentence :confused:
what crime did he threaten to commit afterwards that put him in breach of this new law they've introduced?
will life in prison now be better for that bloke than it was sleeping rough on the streets?
thats crazy but at least he is'nt homeless anymore.
Ah, but the slant that you were selling was that he was going to prison to be forgotten about, a bit of a difference don't you say?
Given the circumstances I don't think so, no.
...so where is all the hysteria "he is in for life" coming from
From the fact that unless his opinion of society - whether it is based on fear, hatred or something else - changes then his sentence remains 'indeterminate', regardless of the minimum sentence imposed.
If he hadn't gone to prison and he later burnt down a school wi kids in it, then questions would be asked why the judge hadn't took this opportunity to jail him out of harms way. I expect folk who don't want to send baddies to jail have then the luxury of just shrugging their shoulders instead of answering those questions in a logical manner. I guess the judge didna want to run that risk...
If he hadn't gone to prison and he later burnt down a school wi kids in it, then questions would be asked why the judge hadn't took this opportunity to jail him out of harms way.
My, that's a binary analysis of the situation if ever there was one... :rolleyes:
If he hadn't gone to prison and he later burnt down a school wi kids in it, then questions would be asked why the judge hadn't took this opportunity to jail him out of harms way. I expect folk who don't want to send baddies to jail have then the luxury of just shrugging their shoulders instead of answering those questions in a logical manner. I guess the judge didna want to run that risk... While I understand the point you're making, and agree with you to a degree about protecting society at large, it still leaves me extremely uncomfortable. Some muggers may eventually commit GBH. Some children who abuse animals may end up as serial killers. Does a reasonable society think it acceptable to punish people for crimes they've not committed in fear of what they might do?
To me, it seems as reasonable as the cry by some militant feminists that "all men are potential rapists" (well, yeah... and?) or the belief that all cannabis users will end up as heroin users. It seems misguided at best, though I find it difficult to interpret it as less than horrifyingly disturbing.
I don't like this legislation. I'm concerned that heavier sentences are being allowed for arson, even minor offences, than are being allowed for serious assaults. I wonder about what the legislature is trying to achieve in its recommendations on sentencing, and what the judiciary is trying to achieve in how it applies those recommendations.
PS What's a person like you doing using the term "baddies"? It sounds like something from some cringeworthy US real-life police documentary. ;)
I would like also to express my frustration at our judicial system.
OK, this guy just set fire to a few odds and ends, and yes, the sentence doesn't seem to fit the crime that is because the end result in our JS normally seems to determine the sentence, ie big damage big sentence. But should it always be like that? I know of a bloke who got done for manslaughter just for punching a guy with one punch. The intention of the guy was to shut him up bickering at other bar goers, if the victim had then got up then the guy would not have been sent down but he had an aneurism in the brain before he walked in the pub and subsequently died as a result of it bursting. But the offender's mental frame would have been the same iow the recklessness was still there. If the victim lived would there be a charge of attempted manslaughter? of course not but it wasn't the offender's fault that the deceased had a medical condition
It is the same with burglary, a guy breaks into a house and steals a DVD player worth £50, so what? 250 hours community service if that. But what if he breaks into the same house and steals £100,000 worth of jewellery? He will get 3 years, the sentence is determined by the 'damage' to the victim. But the Mens rea and modus operandi is still the same, he has broken into a house to steal, the same crime has been committed in the mind of the perpetrator.
The 21/7 suicide bombers will be a classic example, they killed nobody and that will be taken into account when sentence will be passed, but should it? It was a roll of the dice that the bombs failed to go off right? But the intention was the same.
Now I am not sure of the details of this individual case(above) but fire spreads, he may have been reckless to causing a greater danger.
I would like justice to be served in every case but it doesn't always happen, justice is subject to opinion anyway and opinions vary with the judge not the masses who are veritable headhunters, myself included in most cases :)
OK without getting into a 'minority report' scenario, it would be justice if folk were sentenced based on the criminal intent or recklessness of the offender regardless of the end result once in a while, as this in my opinion is where the real crime is being committed. In a way, it allows justice to be done in lieu of future crimes that we all know will be committed. That does not mean that I think that if a kiddie of 11 steals some sweets he should get 10 years imprisonment, it just means that I think big damage big sentence does not always mean that justice can be served.
PS What's a person like you doing using the term "baddies"? It sounds like something from some cringeworthy US real-life police documentary. ;)
Yeah, it was probably from having sweetheart round to the house last Saturday night and having a blether with him down the pub all friday night :)
I know of a bloke who got done for manslaughter just for punching a guy with one punch […] it wasn't the offender's fault that the deceased had a medical condition No, but it was his fault that the man died. He chose to punch the man; to take the risk that the man would have an underlying medical condition that might make a single punch more damaging than expected. He gambled the odds and lost and a man died as a result.
the sentence is determined by the 'damage' to the victim. In part, yes… but take the example of your punch-happy friend (let’s call him Bob) and consider the alternatives:
1) Punishment should fit the perpetrator’s intent.
In this case, Bob only meant to commit an assault. True, a man did die but that was never Bob’s intent so we should only judge him on the assault. Now I don't know, but I'd guess it unlikely that a first-time offender who punches somebody in a drunken brawl would be given a custodial sentence, so we're looking at a fine for taking a life.
2) Punishment should fit the worst-case scenario.
In this case Bob’s punch did result in just about the worst case possible… but he could throw that same punch on a thousand other nights without killing anybody. However, each punch could have killed so each should be punishable as a potential manslaughter. Again I don't know, but I'd guess that manslaughter generally has a pretty lengthy prison term attached. It seems to me that if everybody who throws a punch is to be locked up for years we're going to need some more prisons.
I really don’t think that either of these is a viable alternative to the current situation. If you have another alternative I’m all ears.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.