On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts. "Many millions" (as you seem to be
working on a worldwide basis) would gladly want to kill you for a
number of imaginary reasons but that is the end of a very long road
down which the majority of people closer to home do not wish to go.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:03:45 -0800 (PST), D1039
wrote:

On Dec 29, 12:55*am, MB wrote:
On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:


On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan *wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& *endangering safety of rail passe ngers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& *penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. *Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. *When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

I would like to see more creative use of charging like happens in the
USA. *If there are a series of thefts then charge them with them all and
give them consecutive sentences. *Add trespassing on railway property,
endangering passengers and not having a dog licence each with
consecutive sentences. *In the UK they seem to chose one specimen charge
often not the most serious one then of course seven years means they
will only serve about three years. *The newspapers play along with the
legal system with headlines like "metal thieves get twenty years" which
when you read them actually mean perhaps five people got sentences of up
to five years so will serve two years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Defending solicitors may advise their clients to ask for offences to
be taken into consideration, reminding them that there are thresholds
at which higher sentences result. Often the offences to be taken into
consideration fall just short of the nest sentencing threshold - odd
that.



Re Consecutive and concurrent sentences:

"In the case of R v O'Brien and others [2006] EWCA Crim 1741,
(followed in R v O'Halloran [2006] EWCA 3148) the Court of Appeal
considered whether one sentence of imprisonment for public protection
could be ordered to run consecutively to another sentence of
imprisonment for public protection. The Court determined that while
not unlawful, it is undesirable to impose consecutive indeterminate
sentences or an indeterminate sentence consecutive to another period
of imprisonment".

More on http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...offenders/#a18

That appears to be addressing indeterminate sentences which are made
doubly-indeterminate (IYSWIM) by adding them to one end or the other
of another sentence rather than run-of-the-mill sentencing for
multiple "ordinary" offences. There would seem to be a significant
degree of nonsense in doing so but the judgment maybe allows for rarer
circumstances when it would be appropriate.

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts.


Incorrect. It is not "Fact", it is your opinion (which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.
Indeed, many (non-legal types) thought that was what was going to happen
when hanging was abolished.

(OT) - As I think you imply, some people might like murderers to be
executed. If justice were perfect, I might agree with them. However
google "Timothy Evans" to see why I would oppose the return of a death
penalty. Justice is imperfect, sometimes the police & courts are
defective or incompetent. At least someone in prison can be released &
compensated if they are subsequently found to be innocent.

Bevan

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:35:22 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts.


Incorrect. It is not "Fact", it is your opinion

So the rules for the application of life sentences are a consequence
of my opinion ?

All murders are the same ?

I think not and I doubt if anyone else does.

(which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.

Some should and do. Many others are the perpetrators of a serious
mistake, a moment's loss of control which does not get repeated or
have been provoked beyond reasonable endurance into the act; one-off
events which, while offensive to society, do not harm the general
public and do not require the ongoing protection of others.

Indeed, many (non-legal types) thought that was what was going to happen
when hanging was abolished.

Many thought the homicide rate would double, they were wrong.

(OT) - As I think you imply, some people might like murderers to be
executed. If justice were perfect, I might agree with them. However
google "Timothy Evans" to see why I would oppose the return of a death
penalty. Justice is imperfect, sometimes the police & courts are
defective or incompetent. At least someone in prison can be released &
compensated if they are subsequently found to be innocent.

Agreed.

On 29/12/2011 23:20, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:35:22 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:



I think not and I doubt if anyone else does.

(which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.

Some should and do. Many others are the perpetrators of a serious
mistake, a moment's loss of control which does not get repeated or
have been provoked beyond reasonable endurance into the act; one-off
events which, while offensive to society, do not harm the general
public and do not require the ongoing protection of others.


I concede that there is a case for different classes / degrees of murder
charge, but conviction under the most serious (first degree) charge
should always lead to a full-life sentence. This would include killing
whilst performing robbery or other serious crime, killing with
explosives, killing more than one person, etc. Should they ever be
identified (unlikely after nearly 50 years), this would also include the
Elm Park Murderer(s), who killed two people by putting metal objects on
the railway, derailing a train. The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

Bevan

On Dec 30, 6:29*pm, Bevan Price wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

ian

On Dec 29, 8:38*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:01*pm, furnessvale wrote:

When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

I don't have access to a complete set of sentencing outcomes. *And
nor, I suspect, do you. *The Daily Mail doesn't report all trials, you
know,

ian

I have never read the daily wail in my life but I did serve as a
police officer for more than 20 years. I never saw anyone get the
maximum for any offence (mandatory life for murder excepted). Some of
the offences I dealt with were truly horrific and I often wondered
just what a villain had to do to get the maximum. Then of course
remission, release on licence etc kicks in to reduce things even more.

George

On 30/12/2011 19:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:38 pm, ian wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:01 pm, wrote:

When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

I don't have access to a complete set of sentencing outcomes. And
nor, I suspect, do you. The Daily Mail doesn't report all trials, you
know,

ian

I have never read the daily wail in my life but I did serve as a
police officer for more than 20 years. I never saw anyone get the
maximum for any offence (mandatory life for murder excepted). Some of
the offences I dealt with were truly horrific and I often wondered
just what a villain had to do to get the maximum. Then of course
remission, release on licence etc kicks in to reduce things even more.

George


A few years I read a report in an American newspaper of a very case
where a woman was abducted from her house at gunpoint, taken out of the
town into the woods where she was stripped and repeatedly raped and
abused. She tried to run away and was shot at. She thought she had
been hit and lost consciousness but when came around found that she had
not been hit. She managed to find a road and flag down a truck that
took her to the police.

The attacker was charged with a long list of offences, found guilt of
them all and given long sentences for each one to be served consecutively.

The local reporter was unsure of the total sentence so rang the judge
who was also unsure and had to get out a piece of paper to total them
all up! I think it was about 70+ years so the offender would be about
100 before he would be able to ask for release.

When I read this I wondered about what would happen in the UK. There
would be one charge and quite possibly not the most serious one. He
might get "life" but there seemed a good chance he would be out in 10 to
15 years.

"MB" wrote

The attacker was charged with a long list of offences, found guilt of them
all and given long sentences for each one to be served consecutively.

The local reporter was unsure of the total sentence so rang the judge who
was also unsure and had to get out a piece of paper to total them all up!
I think it was about 70+ years so the offender would be about 100 before
he would be able to ask for release.

When I read this I wondered about what would happen in the UK. There
would be one charge and quite possibly not the most serious one. He might
get "life" but there seemed a good chance he would be out in 10 to 15
years.

What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small number
of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up for many
years, perhaps life, for public protection. But for most, if the sentence
involved intensive education, training, and therapy to address criminal
behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about three years, so it's a
waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for longer. It's no use arguing
that long sentences are a deterrent - criminals aren't deterred by prison,
and the people who are deterred by prison wouldn't dream of committing
crimes anyway.

OTOH, what's the point of short prison sentences (under a year)? They cost a
lot of taxpayers' money, and don't achieve anything.

Peter

On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

ian

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.


Bevan