Crazy...

[eggsarascal]

3 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

I get the impression the evidence wasn't good enough to prosecute or identify the whole mob involved. If the prosecution took 2 years were the 3 on remand all that time?

Probably, for such a serious conspiracy. Evidence isn't really needed in crown court, deals are done before anyone is in the dock, so I'm told.

[openspaceman]

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

Probably,

So two of them will potentially be out very soon?

[eggsarascal]

1 minute ago, openspaceman said:

So two of them will potentially be out very soon?

Yep, if they've been on remand, which I presume they will have been due to the seriousness of the offence they will walk soon.

[Big J]

23 hours ago, Mesterh said:

Very easily, you get 18 years you do 18 years. If you cause problems your sentence goes up. I wouldn't mind my taxes going up if it went directly into punishing scum bags in jail. 

 

 

Whilst I understand the sentiment involved, retributive justice is counter productive. It comes down to whether you wish to punish crime that has occurred or seek to prevent it from happening in the first place. It would however be over simplistic to say that in all cases that incarceration with the intent of restoring the criminal to a useful and harmless member of society is the best course. Some people are beyond redemption. 

 

Even if it goes contrary to human nature, you have to look at the two extremes of the two opposing justice systems. On the one hand, you have the USA (with it's Draconian sentences) and it's sky high (particularly violent) crime rate. On the other, you have Scandinavia, with it's rehabilitative approach and low rates of recidivism. 

 

I cannot personally speculate as to the specifics of this case as the community in which it occurred is quite different from where I live. However, I would say that in the long term, community efforts to reduce criminal and racial tensions would be money better spent than increased prison sentences. I don't think that the prison terms act as much of a deterrent.

 

In this case, special mention has to go to the extremely brave actions of the young tree surgeon, and I wish him all the best in his recovery.

[Mesterh]

10 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Society would have been better served if the whole mob had been cut in half with a chainsaw. 
 

That’d be a good start. 

I agree there.

Remove these scum from society quickly and don't look back.

 

[Mesterh]

51 minutes ago, Big J said:

Whilst I understand the sentiment involved, retributive justice is counter productive. It comes down to whether you wish to punish crime that has occurred or seek to prevent it from happening in the first place. It would however be over simplistic to say that in all cases that incarceration with the intent of restoring the criminal to a useful and harmless member of society is the best course. Some people are beyond redemption. 

 

Even if it goes contrary to human nature, you have to look at the two extremes of the two opposing justice systems. On the one hand, you have the USA (with it's Draconian sentences) and it's sky high (particularly violent) crime rate. On the other, you have Scandinavia, with it's rehabilitative approach and low rates of recidivism. 

 

I cannot personally speculate as to the specifics of this case as the community in which it occurred is quite different from where I live. However, I would say that in the long term, community efforts to reduce criminal and racial tensions would be money better spent than increased prison sentences. I don't think that the prison terms act as much of a deterrent.

 

In this case, special mention has to go to the extremely brave actions of the young tree surgeon, and I wish him all the best in his recovery.

Why can't we punish crime and try to prevent it at the same time? You can't look at the USA system and neither can you look at the swedish system and compare it to us. We have different cultures from the outset.

 

I'm of the thinking that we only have one life and if someone tries to end it or destroy it in some way then fck them and rub them out before they can do more damage.

 

Why should someone have a second chance to improve their life when they have destroyed another?

 

Can anyone provide a good case to argue with that?

 

 

[Big J]

5 hours ago, Mesterh said:

Why can't we punish crime and try to prevent it at the same time? You can't look at the USA system and neither can you look at the swedish system and compare it to us. We have different cultures from the outset.

 

I'm of the thinking that we only have one life and if someone tries to end it or destroy it in some way then fck them and rub them out before they can do more damage.

 

Why should someone have a second chance to improve their life when they have destroyed another?

 

Can anyone provide a good case to argue with that?

 

 

I cannot argue with the sentiment, and I share your desire for retributive justice when considering criminals who have wronged me, or indeed anyone else. 

 

My point is that, even if it's contrary to human nature, a focus on rehabilitation results in a lower crime rate. If the main focus of any criminal justice system is to prevent crime (which is universally is, or indeed should be) then a focus on rehabilitation should be adopted. Recidivism is 77% in the US and 40% in Sweden, for example.

[Gary Prentice]

8 hours ago, Big J said:

However, I would say that in the long term, community efforts to reduce criminal and racial tensions would be money better spent than increased prison sentences.

Knowing the area that'll be an uphill struggle.

Rochdale and Oldham feel to be really edgy at the moment. It's odd that many of the older generation just want to live in peace but a lot of the younger ones don't. 

 

For many years now the police have taken an overly softly softly approach for fear of either allegations of racism or creating an increase in tension. It's back-fired terribly and now many think the law doesn't apply to them and they'll get away with just about anything. In the situation it doesn't need much of a spark to ignite trouble.

[Big J]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

Knowing the area that'll be an uphill struggle.

Rochdale and Oldham feel to be really edgy at the moment. It's odd that many of the older generation just want to live in peace but a lot of the younger ones don't. 

 

For many years now the police have taken an overly softly softly approach for fear of either allegations of racism or creating an increase in tension. It's back-fired terribly and now many think the law doesn't apply to them and they'll get away with just about anything. In the situation it doesn't need much of a spark to ignite trouble.

I lived briefly in Salford and then Trafford Bar 15 years ago. I worked in deepest, darkest Salford and it wasn't a place I'd ever choose to go again. I think I might have passed through Rochdale once, and it was pretty unpleasant. I'm not a fan of Greater Manchester at all. 

 

It's a challenging situation from a policing perspective, certainly. A lack of community engagement, and as you say, proper policing, has resulted in a pretty sure situation. 

 

That being said, harsh prison sentences aren't going to fix the social issues in these towns. It's going to need a bottom up approach to stamping out this criminality before it even develops. As you said, there isn't that issue with the older generation.

[difflock]

Hang a few, and send the rest back to wherever their families emigrated from.

No need for harsh prison sentences.