Idiot Student Jailed

jamespir

Really2 wrote: »

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.

no ones saying her shouldnt go to jail what we are disputing is 3 years fair

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

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.

IMO, community service needs to be graduated. It needs to be more shameful a the beginning and more redemptive at the end...both in scale of sentence AND in the term of one persons sentence. Also, it nees to be harder, longer and even more inconvenient. It needs to be something to really be embarrassed about.

I like the idea of the value. I think this is a disconnect at all free at point of service things too...school, medical help. (Maybe schools could use this cases where severe disruptive behaviours..as opposed to giggling in class, is an issue).

Really2

jamespir wrote: »

no ones saying her shouldnt go to jail what we are disputing is 3 years fair

Well some where.;)

But as I said ignore the riot part. Had it been done a high street would people view be any different.

In reality it will be 18months, he would have criminal record either way.

Harsh, I am not sure? tell me what his intent was?

Wheezy_2

Really2 wrote: »

Harsh, I am not sure? tell me what his intent was?

Don't think there was an intent.
He was just being up on that roof with a bunch of other idiots, there was a fire extinguisher available... "hey look guys, look at me, there it goes"
"wow mullet man, that was sooo cool" said the others.
We all can agree he's a blinking idiot and deserves a sentence.
Just the level of sentence - compared to imo far worse crimes (with intent) as pointed out in this thread - doesn't stack up.

imo of course

PhylPho

jamespir wrote: »

no ones saying her shouldnt go to jail what we are disputing is 3 years fair

Just a quick point: the maximum penalty available to the Judge in this case was 60 months' imprisonment. The Judge imposed 32 months. The defendant can be home after 16 months. Or even sooner.

Is having to serve a 16-month jail term really that punitive for someone whose conduct could have led to the death or permanent disablement of others -- and who says he didn't "feel sick" about what happened until after he was "told" that he'd been behaving in a potentially dangerous manner?

I've no idea how one quantifies the committing of a criminal offence in terms of actual time served. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else. If the argument here is about prison time -- 16, 12, 8, 6, 3 months -- then it's surely going to be impossible to say: "hey, here's how this offence should be time-ranked."

If however there's an argument that no time should be served at all, but a community service order imposed instead, then I've yet to see anyone on this thread making a convincing case.

I'm sorry for the defendant, and for his parents (his mother has been truly courageous in all this) but if we want young adults to take a mature place in Society, then having them develop an awareness of what's right / what's wrong / and what's likely to see them wind up behind bars is as much for our good as theirs.

ess0two

Wheezy wrote: »

Don't think there was an intent.
He was just being up on that roof with a bunch of other idiots, there was a fire extinguisher available... "hey look guys, look at me, there it goes"
"wow mullet man, that was sooo cool" said the others.
We all can agree he's a blinking idiot and deserves a sentence.
Just the level of sentence - compared to imo far worse crimes (with intent) as pointed out in this thread - doesn't stack up.

imo of course

I'm sure there was more to it than showing off,put your hand in the fire expect to get burnt.

People need to take account for their actions,a harsh lesson learned.

blueboy43

PhylPho wrote: »

Just a quick point: the maximum penalty available to the Judge in this case was 60 months' imprisonment. The Judge imposed 32 months. The defendant can be home after 16 months. Or even sooner.

Is having to serve a 16-month jail term really that punitive for someone whose conduct could have led to the death or permanent disablement of others -- and who says he didn't "feel sick" about what happened until after he was "told" that he'd been behaving in a potentially dangerous manner?

I've no idea how one quantifies the committing of a criminal offence in terms of actual time served. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else. If the argument here is about prison time -- 16, 12, 8, 6, 3 months -- then it's surely going to be impossible to say: "hey, here's how this offence should be time-ranked."

If however there's an argument that no time should be served at all, but a community service order imposed instead, then I've yet to see anyone on this thread making a convincing case.

I'm sorry for the defendant, and for his parents (his mother has been truly courageous in all this) but if we want young adults to take a mature place in Society, then having them develop an awareness of what's right / what's wrong / and what's likely to see them wind up behind bars is as much for our good as theirs.

1) I think the punishment is disproportionate compared with most other sentences.

2) Will he be re-habilitated ? Well to be honest I reckon he has learnt his lesson already.

3) Will it protect the public ? Not really - is anyone suggesting that he was likely to do it again.

4) Will it deter others ? Perhaps - but I doubt it, stupid people do stupid things, particularly when caught up in crowd behaviour.

5) Does is send a message to the Daily Mail that judges are not soft on crime ? Yep - although it worries me that this seems the only reason for the length of sentence.

To be honest, a token custodial sentence (time served measured in weeks not years) plus a community sentence would be much more appropriate.

Something like 550 people a year die as a result of drink driving, half of whom are not the driver. If you were over the limit and killed someone drink driving and had no aggravating factors (racing, previous convictions etc), the maximum likely sentence would be 2 years - less if pleading guilty.

The_White_Horse

blueboy43 wrote: »

If you were over the limit and killed someone drink driving and had no aggravating factors (racing, previous convictions etc), the maximum likely sentence would be 2 years - less if pleading guilty.

this is the real disgrace. and driving without insurance should be at least 10 years. there is NO excuse - unless taking a dying person to hospital etc.

torontoboy45

The_White_Horse wrote: »

filthy lefty militant got what he deserved. shame all scum bags don't get such appropriate sentences.

we all took stupid/irresponsible/reckless decisions when we were 18; in approx. 6yrs from now you'll know what I mean.

you are young grasshopper, with much to learn.

Lance

He was not charged with any attempted assault and no 'intent' is mentioned. He was charged with Violent Disorder and his sentence does fit those proscribed by the courts. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/violent_disorder/ It is the fact he was part of a group engaged in violent disorder, rioting, that incresed the severity of the sentence. If you are part of a group of 100 Millwall fans running along a street smashing shop windows and assaulting people you can be convicted of Violent Disorder even if you personally did not break a window or assault anyone but were merely chanting your teams name and running with the gang.