Android Keyboard, Small Letters!!
Technology1 min ago
Statues
People who desecrate or vandalise memorials or statues in Britain will face up to ten years in prison under tough new legislation set to be enacted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government.
The legislation, a part of the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, will introduce protections for war memorials, statues, and even wreaths or flowers laid at gravestones.
Penalties for such offences were previously capped at a maximum of three months in prison if it was determined that £5,000 in damage was caused. The updated law will increase the penalty to up to ten years in prison and or fines of up to £2,500, The Telegraph reported.
It seems a sad indictment of present day society that it has come to this, but a step in the right direction nevertheless?
The legislation, a part of the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, will introduce protections for war memorials, statues, and even wreaths or flowers laid at gravestones.
Penalties for such offences were previously capped at a maximum of three months in prison if it was determined that £5,000 in damage was caused. The updated law will increase the penalty to up to ten years in prison and or fines of up to £2,500, The Telegraph reported.
It seems a sad indictment of present day society that it has come to this, but a step in the right direction nevertheless?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//We already have one of the largest prison populations in Europe.//
Indeed we do. And the reason for that is because there are far more criminals in the UK than in other comparable countries. Leaving aside those sentenced for very serious offences such as murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery and so on, which attract a prison sentence for a first time offender, the vast majority of people going to prison for the first time in the UK are not first time offenders. They have usually gone through either all or most of the “apprenticeship” of sentencing options available to courts: youth referral orders; discharges; fines; community orders (of various types); and suspended sentences. They end up in custody because all other options have failed to modify their behaviour.
The UK does not commit people to prison at the drop of a hat. In many European countries, if you commit an offence of assault where injury results, even if it is your first offence you will almost certainly receive a custodial sentence. In the UK, if you do so – even if your victim is a police officer – you will almost certainly not. Look at Spain as an example (useful because it sets minimum sentences as well as maximums):
The minimum penalty for an assault in Spain where the person concerned suffers any injury is imprisonment for three months. In the UK offences such as Common Assault and Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm will almost certainly result in a non-custodial sentence.
Possession of Class A drugs (heroin, cocaine etc.) carries a minimum penalty of three months in prison. In the UK a custodial sentence would not be considered unless large amounts of drugs were involved or the offender had a lengthy record for similar offences.
In 2018 the EU average prison population per 100,000 people was 111. In England & Wales the figure was about 150. That is certainly the highest in Western Europe. But that is not because the UK is sends people to prison more readily. It is because there are more people in prison who are committed criminals. By the time many people go to prison in the UK they have already committed a large number of offences. They end up in prison because of that, not because of the sentencing regime (which by many comparisons, is quite lax).
The EU average is dragged upwards by the eastern nations. The highest per capita prison populations can be found in Lithuania, Turkey, Estonia, Poland, Albania, Montenegro and Latvia. It is notable that the UK has a high number of residents who originated from many of those countries and among the top five foreign nationals in UK prisons are those from Poland, Albania and Lithuania.
The UK does not send more people to prison because it has a harsh regime. It does so because it has a high preponderance of serious and habitual criminals among its population.
Indeed we do. And the reason for that is because there are far more criminals in the UK than in other comparable countries. Leaving aside those sentenced for very serious offences such as murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery and so on, which attract a prison sentence for a first time offender, the vast majority of people going to prison for the first time in the UK are not first time offenders. They have usually gone through either all or most of the “apprenticeship” of sentencing options available to courts: youth referral orders; discharges; fines; community orders (of various types); and suspended sentences. They end up in custody because all other options have failed to modify their behaviour.
The UK does not commit people to prison at the drop of a hat. In many European countries, if you commit an offence of assault where injury results, even if it is your first offence you will almost certainly receive a custodial sentence. In the UK, if you do so – even if your victim is a police officer – you will almost certainly not. Look at Spain as an example (useful because it sets minimum sentences as well as maximums):
The minimum penalty for an assault in Spain where the person concerned suffers any injury is imprisonment for three months. In the UK offences such as Common Assault and Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm will almost certainly result in a non-custodial sentence.
Possession of Class A drugs (heroin, cocaine etc.) carries a minimum penalty of three months in prison. In the UK a custodial sentence would not be considered unless large amounts of drugs were involved or the offender had a lengthy record for similar offences.
In 2018 the EU average prison population per 100,000 people was 111. In England & Wales the figure was about 150. That is certainly the highest in Western Europe. But that is not because the UK is sends people to prison more readily. It is because there are more people in prison who are committed criminals. By the time many people go to prison in the UK they have already committed a large number of offences. They end up in prison because of that, not because of the sentencing regime (which by many comparisons, is quite lax).
The EU average is dragged upwards by the eastern nations. The highest per capita prison populations can be found in Lithuania, Turkey, Estonia, Poland, Albania, Montenegro and Latvia. It is notable that the UK has a high number of residents who originated from many of those countries and among the top five foreign nationals in UK prisons are those from Poland, Albania and Lithuania.
The UK does not send more people to prison because it has a harsh regime. It does so because it has a high preponderance of serious and habitual criminals among its population.
'There's no human rights defence against punishments for breaking the law'
Then why is there a whole court (ECtHR) dedicated to hearing appeals on convictions based on it (Human Rights)?
On 30 January 2019, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Hallam
and Nealon v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 1. It ruled that the statutory provisions governing eligibility for compensation of persons whose conviction for a criminal offence is reversed are compatible with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the ECHR.
Then why is there a whole court (ECtHR) dedicated to hearing appeals on convictions based on it (Human Rights)?
On 30 January 2019, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Hallam
and Nealon v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 1. It ruled that the statutory provisions governing eligibility for compensation of persons whose conviction for a criminal offence is reversed are compatible with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the ECHR.
//what happened to the morons who pulled down the Colston statue, anyone know...//
They are awaiting trial in the Crown Court, emmie.
//Community Service. Better than them costing us, tax payers, lots of money.//
“Community Service” (properly known as a Community Order with an Unpaid Work Requirement) is a hugely expensive operation, LJ. Whilst obviously not as expensive as prison (around £35k - £40 per year per prisoner) it is estimated that to see a person through a 100 hour sentence costs around £8,500.
Anybody believing that custody holds no fear for defendants should take a trip to their local Magistrates’ Court when people are being sentenced where custody is an option. They (or more usually their advocates) will move heaven and earth to see prison avoided. They will readily submit to anything else – supervision, curfew orders, unpaid work – anything to avoid a few weeks inside (and six weeks is the most that most people will spend in prison if sentenced in a Magistrates’ Court). Anything other than custody will be seen as “a result”.
They are awaiting trial in the Crown Court, emmie.
//Community Service. Better than them costing us, tax payers, lots of money.//
“Community Service” (properly known as a Community Order with an Unpaid Work Requirement) is a hugely expensive operation, LJ. Whilst obviously not as expensive as prison (around £35k - £40 per year per prisoner) it is estimated that to see a person through a 100 hour sentence costs around £8,500.
Anybody believing that custody holds no fear for defendants should take a trip to their local Magistrates’ Court when people are being sentenced where custody is an option. They (or more usually their advocates) will move heaven and earth to see prison avoided. They will readily submit to anything else – supervision, curfew orders, unpaid work – anything to avoid a few weeks inside (and six weeks is the most that most people will spend in prison if sentenced in a Magistrates’ Court). Anything other than custody will be seen as “a result”.
Jim,// but has there ever been evidence that harsh punishments deter crime//
I once met a man who had been punished by by being birched in his younger days. I asked him what he thought about it and he told me that any time he thought of committing a crime he got a pain in his back and that was enough to make him think again as he did not want to run the risk of being birched again.That was a deterrent.
I once met a man who had been punished by by being birched in his younger days. I asked him what he thought about it and he told me that any time he thought of committing a crime he got a pain in his back and that was enough to make him think again as he did not want to run the risk of being birched again.That was a deterrent.
The case you cite is somewhat different, Zacs.
The case of Nealon and Hallam was concerned with payment of compensation to people who had been wrongly convicted. There is no Human Rights provision that people cannot be punished for criminal activity (other than that their punishment must not be "degrading" or "inhuman").
There are a number of rights contained in the ECHR (and our own Human Rights Act) covering the treatment of those accused of crime. But these generally relate to the process used to convict them (right to be informed of the allegations against them, right to a fair trial etc). Those apart, the only HR influence I have heard of recently has been in relation to the compatibility of "whole life" sentences with HR.
The case of Nealon and Hallam was concerned with payment of compensation to people who had been wrongly convicted. There is no Human Rights provision that people cannot be punished for criminal activity (other than that their punishment must not be "degrading" or "inhuman").
There are a number of rights contained in the ECHR (and our own Human Rights Act) covering the treatment of those accused of crime. But these generally relate to the process used to convict them (right to be informed of the allegations against them, right to a fair trial etc). Those apart, the only HR influence I have heard of recently has been in relation to the compatibility of "whole life" sentences with HR.
Leaving aside the fact that a single anecdote constitutes no meaningful evidence, and that corporal punishment has been rightly removed from schools, the point I'm making is that (a) he had to be *caught*, and (b) that therefore means that the knowledge that he could be birched didn't deter him at the time from breaking the rules.
Maybe it's helped afterwards, although I have to ask:
-- how come your friend spends so often thinking of committing crimes that he's got such a conditioned response now;
-- why is it that the consequences for other people of criminal action aren't incentive enough for him not to follow through on his thoughts?
I'm being slightly facetious, but the simple fact is that the entirety of human history demonstrates that harsh punishments in and of themselves offer no effective deterrent.
Maybe it's helped afterwards, although I have to ask:
-- how come your friend spends so often thinking of committing crimes that he's got such a conditioned response now;
-- why is it that the consequences for other people of criminal action aren't incentive enough for him not to follow through on his thoughts?
I'm being slightly facetious, but the simple fact is that the entirety of human history demonstrates that harsh punishments in and of themselves offer no effective deterrent.
"The UK does not send more people to prison because it has a harsh regime. It does so because it has a high preponderance of serious and habitual criminals among its population."
I for one am not claiming that the UK has a "harsh regime" per se. But the fact is our prisons are overcrowded with people doing time for crimes which in the opinion of many do not merit that type of punishment, More than many other countries.
Coming up with a "maximum 10 year sentence" sounds like a "back of a fag packet, unimaginative, kneejerk reaction. Why should the dismantling of statues be a specific crime anyway? Surely there are other offences that would cover it? It's the law and order topic du jour - or at least it was last year: I still haven't seen any confirmation that this is anything other than a daft idea that was bandied around last summer, but has not been mentioned since.
Tho nothing would surprise me.
I for one am not claiming that the UK has a "harsh regime" per se. But the fact is our prisons are overcrowded with people doing time for crimes which in the opinion of many do not merit that type of punishment, More than many other countries.
Coming up with a "maximum 10 year sentence" sounds like a "back of a fag packet, unimaginative, kneejerk reaction. Why should the dismantling of statues be a specific crime anyway? Surely there are other offences that would cover it? It's the law and order topic du jour - or at least it was last year: I still haven't seen any confirmation that this is anything other than a daft idea that was bandied around last summer, but has not been mentioned since.
Tho nothing would surprise me.
I'm reading Dickens' 'Tale of Two Cities' at the moment & I'm surprised to learn that still in the late 18th century Britain, you could be hanged, drawn & quartered for treason, (Churchill statue? :0) . The 'drawing' meant the offender was dragged through the streets, he was dis-embowelled - before his own eyes - then chopped into 4 pieces & his head stuck on a pike.
So we have moved on a bit!
So we have moved on a bit!
//But the fact is our prisons are overcrowded with people doing time for crimes which in the opinion of many do not merit that type of punishment,//
Which crimes would they be?
//Coming up with a "maximum 10 year sentence" sounds like a "back of a fag packet, unimaginative, kneejerk reaction. Why should the dismantling of statues be a specific crime anyway? Surely there are other offences that would cover it?//
Agreed. Criminal Damage should do the job (10 years maximum, 14 years if racially or religiously aggravated).
// It's the law and order topic du jour - or at least it was last year://
Agreed.
//Why on earth we are so obseesed with locking people away as a punishment is beyond me.//
Because it gives the rest of us some respite from their activities and it is the only disposal which requires no co-operation from the miscreant.
Which crimes would they be?
//Coming up with a "maximum 10 year sentence" sounds like a "back of a fag packet, unimaginative, kneejerk reaction. Why should the dismantling of statues be a specific crime anyway? Surely there are other offences that would cover it?//
Agreed. Criminal Damage should do the job (10 years maximum, 14 years if racially or religiously aggravated).
// It's the law and order topic du jour - or at least it was last year://
Agreed.
//Why on earth we are so obseesed with locking people away as a punishment is beyond me.//
Because it gives the rest of us some respite from their activities and it is the only disposal which requires no co-operation from the miscreant.
