Been burgled and annoyed at short sentence given to offender?

[emc]

Hi - am looking to talk to someone who was burgled whilst they were at home, the offender was caught, but you feel their sentence was far too short....it's to do an interview for a morning TV show in relation to new sentencing guidelines for burglars that are being introduced next week. Please PM me for more info. Many thanks.

[LadyDeliah]

What about people who think the sentence was just right, or a bit harsh? Are they excluded?

[Thomas Micklewright]

Come along to the neighbourhood watch meeting goose green centre, east dulwich road, 18th Jan 7.30pm

Tom

[woodrot]

National service would sort them out.

[Otta]

Bad lads army. The only reality tv I ever made a point of watching!

[Huguenot]

Ha ha. I think the only person who could start with 'too short a sentence' for burglary would be someone who's never been in prison.

Mind you, if we decided that the appropriate sentence for burglary was breaking their legs and stabbing them in the throat, imagine the things we could do to people who committed worse crimes?

[Applespider]

I didn't realise they actually caught burglars these days. On the occasions where I or neighbours have been done over, we've never heard of anyone ever being arrested for it at all, let alone put in prison.

[sophiesofa]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't realise they actually caught burglars

> these days. On the occasions where I or

> neighbours have been done over, we've never heard

> of anyone ever being arrested for it at all, let

> alone put in prison.

We had an attempted burglary (although he was tried for criminal damage in the end) on Lordship lane 2 years ago and he was caught and went to prison for a bit over 4 months I think. So sometimes they are caught and sentenced.

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the only person who could start

> with 'too short a sentence' for burglary would be

> someone who's never been in prison.

Perhaps the only person who could defend short sentences for burglary would be someone who doesn't know what it's like to have your home broken into, and precious possessions stolen.

[Huguenot]

I've been burgled twice - once with my family and once independently, so I'm familiar with the sense of violation.

However, I'm pleased that it hasn't ruined my sense of proportion and perspective, nor muddied the waters on revenge, retribution and rehabilitation.

The current maximum for domestic burglary (non-aggravated) is 14 years, the minimum for repeat offenders is 3 years.

The current average custodial sentence is 2 years.

The guidelines are that the sentence should reflect both the value of good taken AND any behviour which would have impact upon the resident (for example urinating or spreading faeces).

Do I think that's about right? Yep.

The problem is that when we imagine burglary we think of armed assaults by masked men whilst we are sleeping.

That isn't burglary - that's aggravated burglary and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. We can't sentence people on crimes they 'might' have committed, or that we are scared of - only those crimes that they actually have committed.

[Jeremy]

I agree that a max of 14 years, with a min of 3 years for repeat offenders sounds about right. But I think the OP is talking about the ones who receive much shorter sentences.

[Huguenot]

For a teenager's first offence of an impulse burglary through an open door taking little of value?

I know there will be those that will consider nothing less than ruining their lives for such an act - I don't agree with them, and I don't think those braying for a hanging have thought it through.

I only spent 24 hours in a shared cell and it was bloody awful. 10 years for an act of gormless teenage machismo is just ridiculous.

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For a teenager's first offence of an impulse

> burglary through an open door taking little of

> value?

>

You see thats the part I have a problem with. The impulse thing. Is impulse burglary similar to impulse buying but without having to pay for the goods. Do we then sentence these individuals on impulse. Are we now saying that its the home owner is at fault for leaving a door open and therefore invites the burglar in? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? I don't get the acting on impulse thing when it comes to commiting a criminal act. I'll shed no tears for such "impulsive" individuals. It seems that our judicial system is weighted in favour of the criminal and fcuk the victim, who may have to serve a life sentence of psyhcological damage as a result of having their home broken in to by an impulsive individual.

[Huguenot]

The justice system should be capable of putting crimes in perspective and in proportion.

Every case should be judged on its relative merits.

There are going to be those that believe in a massive overreaction to youthful misdemeanour, and it's up to the rational majority to restrain them from destroying the lives of individuals and creating lifetime criminals by a sentencing policy based on disproportionate vengeance.

Likewise it's also the responsibility of the justice system to differentiate those crimes which through conspiracy, premeditation, aggravation, violence and scale deserve a much greater response.

There is a good reason why the justice system demands that the victim does not sentence the perpetrator - because emotional responses colour people's judgement.

Journalism that the OP proposes is designed to exploit this weakness and inflame tension in our communities to make money. It's not particularly impressive.

[LadyDeliah]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The justice system should be capable of putting

> crimes in perspective and in proportion.

>

> Every case should be judged on its relative

> merits.

>

> There are going to be those that believe in a

> massive overreaction to youthful misdemeanour, and

> it's up to the rational majority to restrain them

> from destroying the lives of individuals and

> creating lifetime criminals by a sentencing policy

> based on disproportionate vengeance.

>

> Likewise it's also the responsibility of the

> justice system to differentiate those crimes which

> through conspiracy, premeditation, aggravation,

> violence and scale deserve a much greater

> response.

>

> There is a good reason why the justice system

> demands that the victim does not sentence the

> perpetrator - because emotional responses colour

> people's judgement.

>

> Journalism that the OP proposes is designed to

> exploit this weakness and inflame tension in our

> communities to make money. It's not particularly

> impressive.

I hate it when I agree with you Hugo!

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are going to be those that believe in a

> massive overreaction to youthful misdemeanour, and

> it's up to the rational majority to restrain them

> from destroying the lives of individuals and

> creating lifetime criminals by a sentencing policy

> based on disproportionate vengeance.

>

So some poor sod that has a life time of mental problems caused by a "youthful misdemeanour" to contend with can't be part of what you call "the rational majority". What a pompous phrase that is and doubtless you are part of this cosy self righteous clique. When will the victims be given the same rights that the scums bags seem to enjoy, at the moment there is huge gulf between the two. At the risk of causing moral outrage to some EDFers, it is this weak and lily livered approach that helps to perpetuate criminality, as criminal acts are trivialised and excused by well meaning buffoons. The judge who let the gang of muslim girls off without a blemish on their characters, on the basis that they were not used to alcohol is a prime example of such a buffoon. "Likewise it's also the responsibility of the

justice system to differentiate those crimes which through conspiracy, premeditation, aggravation, violence and scale deserve a much greater response". What happened there then? I guess he viewed it as being a "youthful misdemeanour" eh? And we wonder why many feel let down by the justice system. Victims these days are treated by the judical system as a nuisance and an irritant that they would rather not deal with. Give me strength

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure why you're using this as an excuse to have ago at Muslim's Parkdrive, I'm sure a bit of Sharia Law would be right up your alley?

I note that you have absolutely no idea why the girls were given a suspended sentence, you only know what the Daily Mail told you - and all the Mail said was that they attempted to use their religion as mitigation, BUT not that it had any impact on the judgement.

What the judge said was that the victim's boyfriend had been racially abusive and had been the first to use violence, and that the whole confrontation had been an escalation that built up over a period time, that may well have been initially created by the victim herself.

I recognise that the truth of the affair may not be that interesting to you?

I don't see there's a massive gulf between punishment and crime in general, seems to me to be a well worked intelligent compromise with decisions made by people informed of the full facts.

I can see there's a massive gulf between what you perceive to be appropriate punishment and crime.

However, if you think yourself an effective judge, jury and sentencer, you should probably spend some more time with the facts and less time focusing on people's religion?

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure why you're using this as an excuse to

> have ago at Muslim's Parkdrive, I'm sure a bit of

> Sharia Law would be right up your alley?

>

> I note that you have absolutely no idea why the

> girls were given a suspended sentence, you only

> know what the Daily Mail told you - and all the

> Mail said was that they attempted to use their

> religion as mitigation, BUT not that it had any

> impact on the judgement.

>

> What the judge said was that the victim's

> boyfriend had been racially abusive and had been

> the first to use violence, and that the whole

> confrontation had been an escalation that built up

> over a period time, that may well have been

> initially created by the victim herself.

>

> I recognise that the truth of the affair may not

> be that interesting to you?

>

> I don't see there's a massive gulf between

> punishment and crime in general, seems to me to be

> a well worked intelligent compromise with

> decisions made by people informed of the full

> facts.

>

> I can see there's a massive gulf between what you

> perceive to be appropriate punishment and crime.

>

> However, if you think yourself an effective judge,

> jury and sentencer, you should probably spend some

> more time with the facts and less time focusing on

> people's religion?

As a muslim myself I find your remarks highly offensive. Just for the record, I have a very close friend who has suffered with mental helath problems directly attributed to a break in at her home and same has never been the same since. The criminal was an 18 year old who's defence was that she had left a window open which he had to climb up to gain entry, and he had never done this ort of thing before. It must be great to be as intelligent and all knowing as you think you are. As for focusing on religion, I feel qualified to talk about this particular religion as its my own.

[Jeremy]

Hugo - totally agree that perspective and proportion need to be applied when it comes to sentencing. It wasn't my intention to suggest that all offenders should be locked up for life, or have their hands cut off.

But I would find it hard to defend non-custodial sentences for convicted burglars.

[Huguenot]

I know Jeremy, we seem to have beome a bit polarised!

Parkdrive, what bit was offensive exactly?

Saying that you were having a go at Muslims (you were) or saying that you would find Sharia Law attractive (with your absolutist approach to crime and punishment you clearly would).

If you look for offence, you can find it everywhere - it doesn't mean that it is intended or implied.

The fact that your friend has had mental health problems is not an issue in the sentencing of the criminal. All petty burglaries should be sentenced according to the crime committed.

[Parkdrive]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive, what bit was offensive exactly?

>

> Saying that you were having a go at Muslims (you

> were) or saying that you would find Sharia Law

> attractive (with your absolutist approach to crime

> and punishment you clearly would).

>

> If you look for offence, you can find it

> everywhere - it doesn't mean that it is intended

> or implied.

>

> The fact that your friend has had mental health

> problems is not an issue in the sentencing of the

> criminal. All petty burglaries should be sentenced

> according to the crime committed.

First and formeost I have no absolutist approach as you so outrageously suggest, and I'm not suprised that someone as pompous and unsypathetic as you would brush this aside in your high handed (no pun intended) manner. You are a one off. Thank God. My friend didn't ask to have her home broken into, but an "impulsive" act has sentenced her to a wretched life. Thanks for your sympathy.

[LadyDeliah]

Parkdrive, he's not a one off. I agree with him on this issue.

Sentencing should be based on the facts of the crime committed. not the emotional response of the victim.

Some victims are over-sensitive while others are much tougher and resilient. Why should the tough victims not expect the same sentencing in crimes committed against them as those who are over-sensitive?

It stands to reason that the sensitivity of the victims to crimes committed against them will vary drastically for any number of reasons, but how can an offender be held to account for anything other than the actual act committed, based on the facts available?

In any case, victims can submit statements of the effect of the crime upon them and are able to give evidence to that effect, so their views are taken into account by the Judge in sentencing offenders.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think you are being a bit unfair to H Parkdrive and seem to have been quick to take exception to his points whilst only displaying anger in your own.

Very few first time offences, unless they are of a serious violent nature result in a custodial sentence. We don't have the prison or remand facilities we would need for jailing every offender either.

With burglary, judges prefer to give other types of punishment and means for intervention for first time offences. My experience has mainly been with youths who get into trouble and I know from that experience that the majority of young people, if caught early on and given the right type of intervention and mentoring do not reoffend. Many of them also don't know why they took part in burglary either. Often they are tagging along with someone else and the burglay was opportunistic, as opposed to criminal masterminds carrying out a premeditated crime wave. I also know that victims find that lack of motive infuriating, but that's just how many of these young people are. They truly don't think about what they are doing at the time and mentoring gets them to think.

There are though a small percentage for whom no amount of mentoring will have an imapct and this is where I pesonally feel that the juducial system fails to protect the public. I know of one young man who committed over 30 offences before any judge gave him a custodial sentence (and for two years in his case).

H is absolutely right. The law has to operate with a level playing field and keep a sense of perspective when it comes to punishment and sentencing. Victims often want something harsher, and understandably so, but good perspective and extremes of emotion don't often go hand in hand. There are too resources and organisations for helping victims of crime including a criminal injuries compensation scheme.

*cross posted with LD but broadly saying the same thing :)

[KidKruger]

My initial impulse is to jail burglars straight-off whether first offence or not, scumbags that they are, for the invasive nature of the crimes they commit.

However, when I reflect on my own teenage years, I realise that would mean I'd have been locked up for (what started-out as) impulse burglaries which led, due to their success and my increased confidence, to break-in burglaries.

Hugeunot pointed out that impulse burglaries committed by teenagers in machismo mode shouldn't necessarily result in custodial punishment. I understand that view but on reflection if I'd received a custodial for the initial, opportunistic burglaries, I'd never have progressed to the burglaries requiring tools. I guess it could be argued that custodial time would have meant I mixed with more experienced criminals and learned additional skills ready for use on my release, so would have progressed to more significant crimes anyway.

So perhaps there's an argument for preventative benefits of early custodial sentences ?

I do think the effect on the victim should be included in the asssessment of a sentence and this should include emotional damage and impact on the victim's sense of security and peace of mind. I don't think the argument that a burglar is not accountable for anything other than the crime they commit is fair to the victim, if a victim suffers trauma, they suffer trauma, regardless of what the burglar 'intended'.

I was never caught, though I was apprehended for other crimes. The gall of some of my burglaries still startles me, there was a sense of being untouchable once you'd got away safely and on occasions even during the chase before you were even safe. Perhaps that's the 'machismo' aspect of the crime.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think that's also the confidence of youth too.....whilst also being ignorant to the impact of certain things on others.

When you were caught for an offence KK.....were you given any other kind of intervention or mentoring? Was there any effort to make you think about what you had done and why?