ChatterBank8 mins ago
Police Cautions To Be Scrapped
http://
What do we all think about this ? I haven't really given it much thought as yet but I am tending towards the "if it aint broke" argument at the moment.
What do we all think about this ? I haven't really given it much thought as yet but I am tending towards the "if it aint broke" argument at the moment.
Answers
Any procedure that allows the victim to affect the punishment is not worth considering. So one is suggesting that an offense against a vengeful victim the culprit is deserving of the worst that can be thrown at them, but happen to pick a forgiving individual then the culprit if treated leniently ? This is not justice it is primitive madness. Sentencing is the...
12:07 Sat 01st Nov 2014
Ive just heard a guy on the radio saying that cautions are not a waste of time and that the majority of people issued with one don't reoffend.
Restorative Justice, for example, is not a new concept and can be very effective, in fact, any situation which empowers the victim under controlled circumstances has to be a good thing.
Restorative Justice, for example, is not a new concept and can be very effective, in fact, any situation which empowers the victim under controlled circumstances has to be a good thing.
Any procedure that allows the victim to affect the punishment is not worth considering. So one is suggesting that an offense against a vengeful victim the culprit is deserving of the worst that can be thrown at them, but happen to pick a forgiving individual then the culprit if treated leniently ?
This is not justice it is primitive madness. Sentencing is the province of those who can be dispassionate, look at the situation and weight up the appropriate course of action across all cases equally. A victim lottery is no way to go.
This is not justice it is primitive madness. Sentencing is the province of those who can be dispassionate, look at the situation and weight up the appropriate course of action across all cases equally. A victim lottery is no way to go.
OG, I think your description of a 'victim lottery' is inaccurate. The process will operate under more controls than you imagine.
What is wrong with criminals who cause damage to property having to pay compensation to their victim or write a letter of apology? It's not about levels of victim retribution it's about involving a victim and offender who engage with professionals to find a resolution that is fitting to both parties.
I think if you participated in a Restorative Justice conference you would see the merits of all parties working together and not in a punitive sense at all.
Take a look at the attached link to see what can be achieved!
http://
What is wrong with criminals who cause damage to property having to pay compensation to their victim or write a letter of apology? It's not about levels of victim retribution it's about involving a victim and offender who engage with professionals to find a resolution that is fitting to both parties.
I think if you participated in a Restorative Justice conference you would see the merits of all parties working together and not in a punitive sense at all.
Take a look at the attached link to see what can be achieved!
http://
I respect your opinion OG but I don't agree. This is about giving the victim a greater say and involvement without unrealistic demands being made of the criminal. Any grandiose notions of compensation or too harsh a remedy will not happen. It's about the perpetrator taking responsibility and understanding the effects his/her actions have on the victim.
The problem is, Mikey, it is broke, and very much so.
The original concept of police cautions was that first time offenders committing trivial (not the right word because no crime is trivial to the victim, but I can't think of a better one for the moment) offences should receive a caution instead of being prosecuted. The aim was twofold - to reduce the cost and police time involved in bringing a matter to court and to divert offenders away from the court who, although of previous good character, had made a single minor transgression and prevent them acquiring a criminal record. So far so good.
For some time judges and magistrates have been suggesting that the use of police cautions has become far too widespread and that serious offences or multiple offenders are being dealt with by their use. In 2010 the new government imposed restrictions on the use of cautions. However, those restricions did not go anywhere near far enough. In the 12 months to September 2012 (the latest full figures I can find without searching too hard) 9,600 cautions were issued for offences of violence, 23,300 for theft and handling stolen goods, 2,400 for burglary, 1,400 for sexual offences. In 2012 in London five people received cautions for rape (maximum penalty Life imprisonment), 180 for Section 18 GBH with intent (the most serious of offences involving violence without a death resulting) and 131 for robbery.
As far as multiple offenders goes, the government issued proposals last year to prevent offenders being issued with a caution for second or subsequent offence of a similar nature within two years. (almost 5,000 offenders were subject to just that in 2013).
The problem is that the police view the issue somewhat differently to me. Spokesman for the ACPO, Chief Constable Lynne Owens said this:
" It is important that there is room for officer discretion in any system to ensure the punishment is proportionate to the offence. "
It is not for the police to determine what punishment is proportionate to the offence. That is a matter for the courts. There is no doubt that the use of police cautions has got out of hand. Multiple offenders (whether the offence is similar or not) should not receive them and the range of offences for which first time offenders can be subject to them should be strictly limited.
The original concept of police cautions was that first time offenders committing trivial (not the right word because no crime is trivial to the victim, but I can't think of a better one for the moment) offences should receive a caution instead of being prosecuted. The aim was twofold - to reduce the cost and police time involved in bringing a matter to court and to divert offenders away from the court who, although of previous good character, had made a single minor transgression and prevent them acquiring a criminal record. So far so good.
For some time judges and magistrates have been suggesting that the use of police cautions has become far too widespread and that serious offences or multiple offenders are being dealt with by their use. In 2010 the new government imposed restrictions on the use of cautions. However, those restricions did not go anywhere near far enough. In the 12 months to September 2012 (the latest full figures I can find without searching too hard) 9,600 cautions were issued for offences of violence, 23,300 for theft and handling stolen goods, 2,400 for burglary, 1,400 for sexual offences. In 2012 in London five people received cautions for rape (maximum penalty Life imprisonment), 180 for Section 18 GBH with intent (the most serious of offences involving violence without a death resulting) and 131 for robbery.
As far as multiple offenders goes, the government issued proposals last year to prevent offenders being issued with a caution for second or subsequent offence of a similar nature within two years. (almost 5,000 offenders were subject to just that in 2013).
The problem is that the police view the issue somewhat differently to me. Spokesman for the ACPO, Chief Constable Lynne Owens said this:
" It is important that there is room for officer discretion in any system to ensure the punishment is proportionate to the offence. "
It is not for the police to determine what punishment is proportionate to the offence. That is a matter for the courts. There is no doubt that the use of police cautions has got out of hand. Multiple offenders (whether the offence is similar or not) should not receive them and the range of offences for which first time offenders can be subject to them should be strictly limited.
NJ...as usual, I bow to your superior knowledge in areas of the Law.
The difficulty with your last sentence is that without some kind of "telling off"
procedure, the Courts would be overwhelmed with much more business than they could comfortably cope with. I have a friend that is a Magistrate in Manchester and already they are swamped, on a daily basis.
I am not sure exactly what is going to change in these pilot areas, but for youngsters at least, I think we should keep the hard dressing down by a Sergeant in the Police Station for relatively minor offences.
But I have no hard and fast view on this, as it very much outside my area of expertise.
The difficulty with your last sentence is that without some kind of "telling off"
procedure, the Courts would be overwhelmed with much more business than they could comfortably cope with. I have a friend that is a Magistrate in Manchester and already they are swamped, on a daily basis.
I am not sure exactly what is going to change in these pilot areas, but for youngsters at least, I think we should keep the hard dressing down by a Sergeant in the Police Station for relatively minor offences.
But I have no hard and fast view on this, as it very much outside my area of expertise.
Latest Posts
Animals & Nature11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Buildings And Contents Insurance
Insurance54 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
Film, Media & TV59 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.