Idiot Student Jailed

tomterm8

1) Could he have killed someone? I'd say yes.
2) Did he need a harsh sentence? I'd say yes.
3) Is this sentence socially useful? I'd say no.

It will cost us a fortune to keep him housed and fed, all the time during which he would have been building his life, and after the sentence is served, his chances of contributing to society will be much worse.

Then again, I am not a fan of prison, since it doesn't seem to do much good, all it does is keep criminals off the street for a short period, and when they come out they have been trained to be even more dangerous than before.

PhylPho

No sensible adult in this country can be happy with the absence of sentencing parity or the way Justice has become a roulette wheel where, it seems, any number can come up, depending how lucky a defendant you happen to be.

One element of this case though does seem to have been overlooked in this thread: the defendant's statement, as read to the Court:

"When I was told I had potentially endangered people, I felt sick."

If an individual has to be *told* that chucking a fire extinguisher off a high building into a crowd of people beneath is "potentially dangerous" then getting that individual off the streets would seem to be in the public interest. . .

movilogo

While I don't condone his action, if he managed to kill someone, he'd have got far lenient sentence.

lostinrates

PhylPho wrote: »

If an individual has to be *told* that chucking a fire extinguisher off a high building into a crowd of people beneath is "potentially dangerous" then getting that individual off the streets would seem to be in the public interest. . .

Maybe not locking him up, but it does make one wonder if such an individual had gained the maturity and wisdom to undertake higher level education with education rather than freshers week in mind. But I think that is despairingly common.

jimibaboza

tomterm8 wrote: »

1) Could he have killed someone? I'd say yes.
2) Did he need a harsh sentence? I'd say yes.
3) Is this sentence socially useful? I'd say no.

It will cost us a fortune to keep him housed and fed, all the time during which he would have been building his life, and after the sentence is served, his chances of contributing to society will be much worse.

Then again, I am not a fan of prison, since it doesn't seem to do much good, all it does is keep criminals off the street for a short period, and when they come out they have been trained to be even more dangerous than before.

Why did he need a harsh sentence?

System

Degenerate wrote: »

What's really stupid is that he's 18, meaning that he would have been due to start uni this year, thereby missing the fee rise.

By doing this he's made sure that - if he ever does go to uni now - he will pay the higher fees.

Expenses-paid gap year.

tomterm8

jimibaboza wrote: »

Why did he need a harsh sentence?

If you knowingly break the law by trespassing, and then throw a deadly object at policemen doing their duty, with it landing only a few feet away from one of them, almost killing them, you need a harsh sentence.

It's not rocket science.

I agree with the protesters, I have been on protests against tuition fees myself when I was a student, but you can do that without breaking the law.

Most of the students protested peacefully.

jamespir

tomterm8 wrote: »

If you knowingly break the law by trespassing, and then throw a deadly object at policemen doing their duty, with it landing only a few feet away from one of them, almost killing them, you need a harsh sentence.

It's not rocket science.

I agree with the protesters, I have been on protests against tuition fees myself when I was a student, but you can do that without breaking the law.

Most of the students protested peacefully.

the police did illegal things too but they are not being prosecuted

in this country its one rule for general public one rule for police and politicains and bankers

Really2

Heyman wrote: »

But still possible. Should he have faced jail time in that instance? Where does the line get drawn?

I know this is a pretty fruitless line I'm taking , but just interested in exploring opinion about it. :question:

I personaly don't rate a snowball the same as a fire extinguisher. If it was a 10KG snowball maybe but it still will lose more energy on impact by splatting.

A 10KG block of ice would carry the same intent.

I personally would expect to go to jail for what he had done and he as done and would have expected the same at his age.

The only reason someone never got injured was because people saw him. That does not excuse the act or the intent.

If it was done on a high street on to the general public would people still be so sympathetic? I think the target is softning peoples view here not the act.

It is not allowed at any time, it is not less of an act because it is a riot.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

Its been a few years now since I worked as a solicitor's clerk BUT almost without fail if the person is given a sentence of community service they and/or their family, with gushing graitude thank their barrister (and clerk??? ) for getting them/their kid ''Off''. Clearly, when this happens the gravitas of the sentence isn't really appreciated and thus a good portion of the reason for sentence goes over the head and out of the window.

Community service has such potential to be both a good punishment, but also a learning experience. This is severely under used IMO. I appreciate it wouldn't be cheap but I also appreciate a custodial sentence is not cheap. Nor in many cases beneficial.

Now there is a difference in being ''soft on crime'' and wanting fewer custodial sentences. I would like custody to really mean more, but more to the point I'd like non custodial sentences to mean A LOT more and as well as being punitive to be rehabilitationary.

It is difficult to write anything to contradict the above - excellent post LIR

tomterm8 wrote: »

1) Could he have killed someone? I'd say yes.
2) Did he need a harsh sentence? I'd say yes.
3) Is this sentence socially useful? I'd say no.

It will cost us a fortune to keep him housed and fed, all the time during which he would have been building his life, and after the sentence is served, his chances of contributing to society will be much worse.

Then again, I am not a fan of prison, since it doesn't seem to do much good, all it does is keep criminals off the street for a short period, and when they come out they have been trained to be even more dangerous than before.

An analogy could be drawn with Chaytor, the lying theiving scumbag that he is. He has connections, contacts, knowledge & expertise. Arguably a greater social benefit could have been garnered by giving him community service, whereby he'd repay his debt to society (plus, we'd save on the cost of keeping him in prison).

Here's an idea. How about for community sentences we calculate the actual cost of the crime (including investigation, trial etc) & the community service sentence has a total value that once convicted, you have to work off by earning. In example, unpaid litter picking earning credits v the sentence at the rate of a paid litter picker. If you have additional skills which would benefit the community, then this would promote you working hard to reduce the sentence!:)

Needs more fleshing out, but has potential imo.